Protestant Bible Incorporates the ONLY inspired books

[Fundamentalist]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

 

[Newbie2]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

I guess then that Catholics don’t count as Christians.

Yes, the Church receives her authority from Jesus. And under that authority, she put together the canon of Scripture. The bible didn’t write itself, and otherwise the question remains unanswered, “Under who’s authority was the Bible put together?”.

 

[thistle]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

The Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) compiled the Bible. It seems strange that Protestants accept the books of the New Testament but not the Old Testament. Does that mean Protestants think the Holy Spirit told us the truth about the NT but lied to us about the OT?

 

[ziapueblo]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

St. Jerome may have had his on personal judgement about the Deuterocanonical Books but he accepted the authority of the Church. We of course know that St. Jerome included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books in the Vulgate.

About 90% of Old Testament quotations that are found in the New Testament come from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew text). The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonical Books and was the Scriptures that most Jews used at time.

If you do not accept the 46 books of the Old Testament I find it odd that you would accept the 27 books of the New.

 

[Fundamentalist]

2 Things:

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?
2. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

My thinking is that if his statement about Jesus OR anything in the New Testament didn’t quote anything from the Apocrypha, then that would basically be saying that a great deal he already accepts is false by his own words. Pleas assist.

 

[JMBNH]

The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms aren’t even all the Protestant OT books, but they are the books read in the synagogue and thus were the ones most suitable for Jesus to argue to Pharisees from (in the same way he uses Torah quotes to prove the resurrection to Sadducees rather than telling them to accept the books of the Prophets as scripture)

Therefore the books Jesus referenced were:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Joshua
Judges
Samuel (1 and 2)
Kings (1 and 2)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Twelve Minor Prophets (i.e. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

Psalms

It did not include (since they in no way, shape or form are part of the Psalms or Law and are not in the Jewish groupings of the Prophets):

Job
Proverbs
Ruth (unless part of Judges)
Lamentations (unless part of Jeremiah)
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Esther
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 & 2 Chronicles
Daniel

as well as:

1 & 2 Maccabees
Sirach
Wisdom
Tobit
Judith
Baruch (unless part of Jeremiah)

 

[Janet_S]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

What came first? The Church or the Bible? Actually is was the Church. There was no NT at Pentecost; hence no Christian Bible at the time the Church began.

The 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees) were accepted by the early church and were quoted extensively by the ECF’s. Jerome didn’t accept them as canonical, but he was the main exception. The early Church councils from the 4th century onward included these books in their lists of canonical scripture. You would have a hard time finding a Bible before the Reformation that didn’t contain these 7 books in the OT.

Were you aware that some of the NT writers quote books that are not considered Scripture by either Catholics or Protestants? For example, Paul quotes the pagan poets Menander, Aratus and Epimenides. Jude quotes the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Should these books be considered as inspired writings too?

 

[Janet_S]

2 Things:

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?
2. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

My thinking is that if his statement about Jesus OR anything in the New Testament didn’t quote anything from the Apocrypha, then that would basically be saying that a great deal he already accepts is false by his own words. Pleas assist.

I once looked through the Gospels to see what OT books Jesus quotes. Overwhelmingly, it is the Psalms.

The Psalms are very important for Catholics–we incorporate them into our prayer life like Jesus did.

How important are they for non-Catholic Christians?

 

[runandsew]

The Hebrew version of the Old Testament said that the Messiah would be born of a “young woman”, while the Greek version said that the Messiah would be born of a “virgin”, and the New Testament speaks of the virgin birth.

The epistle of Jude quotes the book of Enoch, so should Enoch be included in the canon?

The New Testament didn’t quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, so should those books also not be included in the canon?

Around 300 of the 350 quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament take their wording from the Greek version of the Old Testament.
So this either proves that the writers of the New Testament used the Greek Version of the Old Testament, or else they were too lazy to translate from Hebrew to Greek, so they just used the Greek version translation to make their work easier.

 

[ziapueblo]

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?

There are many references of the Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament. Here are a few:

-Matthew 12:42, Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
-St. Paul alludes to chapters 12 and 13 of the book of Wisdom in Romans 1:19-25 and Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees chapter 7.
-Christ drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.
-Jesus and his Apostles observe the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem during the winter time (John 10:22-36). The establishment of this key feast day is only recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any of the other Old Testament books.

There are many more examples. I can send you a list if need be

1. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

Jesus, his Apostles and the writers of the New Testament did not quote from Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum.

Quotation does not equal canonicity. Many non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. The Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are quoted in the epistle of St. Jude. The Ascension of Isaiah is alluded to in Hebrews 11:37. The writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander are quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus.

 

[Augustine]

Please, clarify:
Sir 5:13-14:

Be swift to hear, but slow to answer.
If you have the knowledge, answer your neighbor; if not, put your hand over your mouth.

Jam 1:19:

Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

Also:
Wis 2:17-20:

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

Mat 27:41-43:

Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.

From these short examples and others (see here), it seems that the Apostles were familiar with the Deuterocanonicals. Adding the Didache, the book used by the early Church to catechize the faithful, it seems that no one denied their inspired status then. So, if they’re good for them, they’re good for the Church.

 

[beeliner]

This is one of those topics that just keeps cropping up, over and over and over and, while interesting, there is not much left to be said that is not available on earlier threads.

“Fundamentalist”, like most fundamentalists, makes several errors of fact, including:

1. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms.
2. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament.
3. In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation.
4. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament.
5. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new.
6. I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle.

1. Well, not really. He said that all of those contain references to the Messiah. The Writings (Ketuvim) contain many books in addition to the Psalter. And if He meant to divide the Bible into those three parts, why are Christian Bibles not so divided today?
2. Then that would include all of the OT used by the Man Himself and His apostles, that is, The LXX.
3. In Jesus’ day the Hebrew OT was still open. As far as I know, the Hebrew version of the deuterocanonical books may be presumed to have been available until the canon was closed about 90AD. Thereafter, these books, which were, for reasons now obscure, considered too recent to be included, were not allowed in Jewish liturgy and the Hebrew versions were eventually lost except for fragments, but of course, the books all survived in Greek in the LXX.
4. Those who so claim are hiding behind the word’ quoted’. Very few NT allusions to the OT are direct quotes, but rather the OT antecedent may be deduced from the context.

To me, the most striking example of a reference to the deuterocanonicals by Christ is His mention of the ‘unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 12:32), which is a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon 1:6.

References to the deuterocanonicals by other NT writers, especially James and the anonymous author of Hebrews, number in the dozens. Of course, since these books were an integral part of the LXX, there is no reason to suppose that they would NOT be referred to. The Good News Bible gives an incomplete (but pretty good) listing of such references in its footnotes. I count 25 such references just in Hebrews and James.

1. That was what was generally accepted by the Jews FOR LITURGICAL PURPOSES after the canon was closed in about AD90, two entire generations after Christ’s earthly ministry. Lots of material from the deuterocanonical books, for example the adventures of the Maccabees and the story of Judith and Holofernes, remain well known to Jews right up to the present.

By AD90, the deuterocanonical books were well established as part of the Christian OT, and there they remain today and will remain until the end of the age. There is no question, however, that their canonicity was the subject of some dispute until officially affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546.

1. Yet Hebrews contains multiple references to the deuterocanonical books!

 

[Augustine]

ots of material from the deuterocanonical books, for example the adventures of the Maccabees and the story of Judith and Holofernes, remain well known to Jews right up to the present!

Indeed, the politically correct “Jewish Christmas”, Hanukkah, actually a minor Jewish feast that just happens to take place around Christmas, celebrates the Maccabees victory.

 

[VociMike]

Fundamentalist and his friends could blow the Catholic canon out of the water ( ) by simply citing an authoritative (pope or council) recognition of the current Protestant canon some time before the Protestant Reformation. It’s a simple historical question - where does one ever find the Protestant canon in the early Church?

And if it’s not there, ever - why not?

 

[AliciaCL]

This post addresses a great fundamental questions for non-Catholics. It goes to the heart of the sola scriptura problem. Catholics believe that is a wrong man-made principle. Christ created the Church and told the apostles the Holy Spirit would guide it, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. the Bible tells us that. All Christ’s teachings are not in the bible. The apostles taught for many years by word of mouth. The Bible tells us Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days after his resurrection and nothing was written down about what he said to them. Why the bible is the all in non-catholic though, is, I believe, simply from lack of knowledge of history and non-catholic churches gloss over the first 1500 years of Christianity, saying the church “went off the rails” and they say it got straightened out by the Reformation but few details are offered. The Church is what Christ left us to continue to guide. We’re not smart enough to individually figure it all out ourselves via sola scripture. That’s why there’s 30+K christian churches today. Non-catholics start questioning from an incorrect premise, that is, that Jesus left us the Bible alone to guide us. That’s why, non-catholics have such a hard time with the questions discussed here. The church is the official interpreter of the Bible.

 

[R_Britton]

Hi

As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

 

[VociMike]

Hi

As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

Hi and welcome.

By “versions of the Bible” do you mean which translations are acceptable, or which books are in the Catholic bible?

 

[R_Britton]

Hi and welcome.

By “versions of the Bible” do you mean which translations are acceptable, or which books are in the Catholic bible?

Hi,
I mean which translations I guess. I have always used the NIV version. I am aware that Protestant versions have fewer books than the Catholic versions. But I would like to get a Catholic Bible and I’m not sure if there is a particular one I should go for. Its a bit basic I know, but I have only ever used a protestant Bible.

Many thanks
Rachel

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

Hi Rachel, and welcome to the forum!
There are quite a few translations, and it’s really just a matter of personal preference. The main thing to look out for is the frontispiece should say it’s a Catholic bible - You can get a Catholic version of the NIV, if that’s what you’re used to. The one with language like the King James is the Douai-Rheims Bible. Then there is the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem Bible - readings in the Church in England are based in the Jerusalem Bible. There is also the Revised Standard (Catholic Edition) , which is the one I like.
Go along to either a Catholic bookshop, or a large chain such as Waterstones and have a look. There are several Catholic bookshops in London, there are two close by Westminster Cathedral (well worth a look round by the way!)
Good luck, and God bless.

 

[Nan_S]

Hi
As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

Hi, Rachel,

Check out this article: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Any approved Catholic Bible will have an endorsement by an authorized Catholic bishop. You’ll find it on the publisher’s page; look for the *imprimatur *and the *nihil obstat. *(Latin words meaning, effectively, “this is an approved text.”)

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops uses the New American Bible (NAB) as its official text. This is the version used at Mass in all American Catholic Churches. The NAB is published in a variety of editions. You should be able to find a NAB Study Bible edition pretty easily. [EDIT: Oops, just saw you’re not in the USA. You probably want to find an RSV-CE. See below]

If you check the Vatican’s website you will find that the English-language bible text published there is the NAB. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

The Catholic Church also uses the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition as its official text at Mass in other English-speaking countries. This is sometimes called the Ignatius Bible.

Some other popular Catholic editions that are easy to find in bookstores are the New Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible-Catholic Edition, and the New Revised Standard Version.

Hope this helps.