- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You are repeated an assertion that is false. Most to the Fathers cited them as scripture. And those who offered an opinion on them (e.g. Origin, Ausgustine, and even Jerome) were in the affirmative.so, is this the reason that most of the Early Church fathers rejected these books? I would be quite certain that they didn’t use your logic (illogic)
J
jen_fla
Guest
hi ck.
well i am sleepy and really not the best person to explain this … AT ALL,
but i am going to start with the basics and let those with more knowledge jump in.
think of this in terms of a time line. we have all these “books” of scripture from the Jews that were around when Jesus walked the earth. the Jews did not have them all bound up in one book like you see in the Bible now.
there were different groups of Jews. you had the essenes, the pharisees, sadducees and others. each group accepted or rejected certain books. Jesus, being God must have known which ones were truly inspired so he used the greek translated ones called the Septuagint. these collections of books have and always will be used by the Catholic Church as the OT.
around 90 AD the Jews at the council of jamnia got together and decided for the first time to put together a collection of books they thought were inspired. keep in mind this is well after Christ died and Christianity is growing. they decided to not accept the Septuagint which is kind of funny because the pharisees had accepted it up until (well i guess it is speculation… but it seems like) the early Christians had adopted it then they didn’t want want it anymore.
so now fast forward to luther and he decides to remove certain books (which is why they are not in your KJV). he decides to take out what Christians have been using from day one and replace it with what the jews came up with as inspired from the council of jamnia. you will sometimes hear protestants saying, "well we got the OT from the jews shouldn’t they know what is inspired or not?). well then you have to ask yourself, this is all happening AFTER Jesus walked the earth and taught the apostles. we choose to go by what He thinks is inspired. why would we decide to use what the jews decided upon after the fact? they also denied Jesus is God, so you have to make a choice. anyways, luther has created a big stink here so to speak.
so the Catholic Church even though they have always used the same books decided to close the matter once and for all at the council of trent (1545 AD) and declare the books they have (and have always had) are truly inspired books. they did this when the big stink was happening so now protestants like to claim that all of a sudden we added these books when in reality we have had them all along.
here are some good sites to go to:
speroforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5715
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Church_History_Menu.php
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html
and an interesting thread from CA on this very subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=238010
ok, well that wasn’t a very good response, but hopefully it helped a bit. i’m about to pass out here!
and i’m sure i’ll wake up tomorrow and be embarrassed at this weak explanation.
you know, when i was your age (15 right?) my eyes would have glossed over at terms like apocrypha and deuterocanonical. i’m really impressed by how quickly you are learning and taking in all this data! :tiphat:
hopefully someone can come along and add/correct this.
well i am sleepy and really not the best person to explain this … AT ALL,
but i am going to start with the basics and let those with more knowledge jump in.think of this in terms of a time line. we have all these “books” of scripture from the Jews that were around when Jesus walked the earth. the Jews did not have them all bound up in one book like you see in the Bible now.
there were different groups of Jews. you had the essenes, the pharisees, sadducees and others. each group accepted or rejected certain books. Jesus, being God must have known which ones were truly inspired so he used the greek translated ones called the Septuagint. these collections of books have and always will be used by the Catholic Church as the OT.
around 90 AD the Jews at the council of jamnia got together and decided for the first time to put together a collection of books they thought were inspired. keep in mind this is well after Christ died and Christianity is growing. they decided to not accept the Septuagint which is kind of funny because the pharisees had accepted it up until (well i guess it is speculation… but it seems like) the early Christians had adopted it then they didn’t want want it anymore.
so now fast forward to luther and he decides to remove certain books (which is why they are not in your KJV). he decides to take out what Christians have been using from day one and replace it with what the jews came up with as inspired from the council of jamnia. you will sometimes hear protestants saying, "well we got the OT from the jews shouldn’t they know what is inspired or not?). well then you have to ask yourself, this is all happening AFTER Jesus walked the earth and taught the apostles. we choose to go by what He thinks is inspired. why would we decide to use what the jews decided upon after the fact? they also denied Jesus is God, so you have to make a choice. anyways, luther has created a big stink here so to speak.
so the Catholic Church even though they have always used the same books decided to close the matter once and for all at the council of trent (1545 AD) and declare the books they have (and have always had) are truly inspired books. they did this when the big stink was happening so now protestants like to claim that all of a sudden we added these books when in reality we have had them all along.
here are some good sites to go to:
speroforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5715
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Church_History_Menu.php
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html
and an interesting thread from CA on this very subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=238010
ok, well that wasn’t a very good response, but hopefully it helped a bit. i’m about to pass out here!
and i’m sure i’ll wake up tomorrow and be embarrassed at this weak explanation.you know, when i was your age (15 right?) my eyes would have glossed over at terms like apocrypha and deuterocanonical. i’m really impressed by how quickly you are learning and taking in all this data! :tiphat:
hopefully someone can come along and add/correct this.
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
If this is true, which seems so, why do so many deny it?hi ck.
well i am sleepy and really not the best person to explain this … AT ALL,
think of this in terms of a time line. we have all these “books” of scripture from the Jews that were around when Jesus walked the earth. the Jews did not have them all bound up in one book like you see in the Bible now.
there were different groups of Jews. you had the essenes, the pharisees, sadducees and others. each group accepted or rejected certain books. Jesus, being God must have known which ones were truly inspired so he used the greek translated ones called the Septuagint. these collections of books have and always will be used by the Catholic Church as the OT.
around 90 AD the Jews at the council of jamnia got together and decided for the first time to put together a collection of books they thought were inspired. keep in mind this is well after Christ died and Christianity is growing. they decided to not accept the Septuagint which is kind of funny because the pharisees had accepted it up until (well i guess it is speculation… but it seems like) the early Christians had adopted it then they didn’t want want it anymore.
so now fast forward to luther and he decides to remove certain books (which is why they are not in your KJV). he decides to take out what Christians have been using from day one and replace it with what the jews came up with as inspired from the council of jamnia. you will sometimes hear protestants saying, "well we got the OT from the jews shouldn’t they know what is inspired or not?). well then you have to ask yourself, this is all happening AFTER Jesus walked the earth and taught the apostles. we choose to go by what He thinks is inspired. why would we decide to use what the jews decided upon after the fact? they also denied Jesus is God, so you have to make a choice. anyways, luther has created a big stink here so to speak.
so the Catholic Church even though they have always used the same books decided to close the matter once and for all at the council of trent (1545 AD) and declare the books they have (and have always had) are truly inspired books. they did this when the big stink was happening so now protestants like to claim that all of a sudden we added these books when in reality we have had them all along.
here are some good sites to go to:
speroforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5715
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Church_History_Menu.php
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html
and an interesting thread from CA on this very subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=238010
ok, well that wasn’t a very good response, but hopefully it helped a bit. i’m about to pass out here!
you know, when i was your age (15 right?) my eyes would have glossed over at terms like apocrypha and deuterocanonical. i’m really impressed by how quickly you are learning and taking in all this data! :tiphat:
hopefully someone can come along and add/correct this.
I personally want the whole bible, whatever it is, I don’t care, but if I am missing part, its like having a fire truck without water, just doesn’t equal out.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Then, if you want to be truly objective in sorting this out, you must consider the possibility that both Catholics and Protestants have dropped books from their Bibles and that the Eastern Orthodox with their 81 book Bible are the ones that got it right.
I highly doubt that this is an issue that you and I have the skill set to flush this out with 100% confidence of getting right. There are just too many conflicting historical claims that must be sorted through. Just because somebody says so does not necessarily mean that it is true.
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
To begin with, let me say this: If the date was ca. 650 B.C., not all current Old Testament books were even written because Scripture was still in the process of being penned. As time progressed, more and more books would be written and eventually collected to form the Old Testament. The Deteurocanonicals, that Protestants began calling Apocrypha only in the 16th century, eventually became part of the Old Testament as well.
We know this was the case because around the year A.D. 100, at the Jewish Council of Jamnia, Jews decided to throw out the Deteurocanonicals primarliy to suppress the growing influence of the new religion of Christianity. It was from that Jewish Council in A.D. 100, some 70 years AFTER Jesus’ Death and Resurrection, that Protestants took their cue to remove books from the Old Testament in the 16th century.
The only problem with that is the Jews at this Council also condemned the Gospels and Paul’s letters alongside the Deuterocanicals! And that should tell you something.
That is a complete and utter falsehood. Those Old Testament books were officially canonized by the Catholic Church with and alongside the 27 New Testament books at the Council of Hippo and reaffirmed again at the Council of Carthage** in the late 4th century. **
Catholics **DID NOT **add those Old Testament books at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, despite what well-meaning, but badly misinformed Protestants would want you to think. What happended in the 16th century was that the Catholic Church declared the Deteurocanicals to be INFALLIBLE.
Protestants get confused about the Catholic process of declaring something to be INFALLIBLE. They think that whenever the Church declares something to be INFALLIBLE, that’s when the Church first started to officially believe in that idea or concept. That is not true. The Catholic Church’s main reason for declaring any doctrine to be INFALLIBLE is to counter false beliefs circulating at that time, in this case, it was the Protestant Reformers who began removing those books out of the Bible.
Just because the Catholic Church declared the list of Bible books to be INFALLIBLE in the 16th century, did not mean they just started to believe in that list right then and there. Like I said earlier, those O.T. books were officially part of Christendom since the Catholic Church first declared them to be inspired in the late 4th century, along with the 27 N.T books!
Take the Council of Niceas in A.D. 325 as an example. It was at that council that Jesus was INFALLIBLY declared to be the Trinity. Did that mean that no Christian believed in the Trinity before A.D. 325. Of course not! The reason why the Church declared the doctrine of the Trinity only in A.D. 325 was to counter the heresy of Arianism that was raging during that time.
You heard correctly.
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
If this is true, then why do people not have the full bible, I mean how come the full bible isn’t in mass print like KJV or NIT are?
B
blossom02
Guest
S
SIA
Guest
You are wrong. Most of the Early Church fathers did NOT accept the apocrypha as cannonized Scripture. Many early church fathers were in disagreement with Catholic church teaching for that matter as well. Look at what St Thomas Aquinas said concerning the Immaculate Conception.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The bible, hmm I have heard 50 different views
I am wondeirng, was the first bible the one with the extra books or the one with the books you find in KJV and NIT.
**Believe it or not, the KJV was originally published with the “extra books.” You can still get a COMPLETE KJV, though I admit they are hard to find in the USA. I won’t have a mutilated KJV in my house–the WHOLE BIBLE, if you please, not a Bible full of holes.
Actually the first major English translation to EXCLUDE these books was the New American Standard Version of the mid '60’s.
Rather late, isn’t it?**
I am wondeirng, was the first bible the one with the extra books or the one with the books you find in KJV and NIT.
**Believe it or not, the KJV was originally published with the “extra books.” You can still get a COMPLETE KJV, though I admit they are hard to find in the USA. I won’t have a mutilated KJV in my house–the WHOLE BIBLE, if you please, not a Bible full of holes.
Actually the first major English translation to EXCLUDE these books was the New American Standard Version of the mid '60’s.
Rather late, isn’t it?**
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
I don’t know what you mean. The Catholic Bible is the full Bible.Whenever I go to bookstores I see plenty of Catholic Bibles for sale. I see all the different versions:
Douay-Rheims which is the Catholic equilavent of the KJV
NAB
RSV, etc., etc., etc.
R
Rolltide
Guest
It is. Among the currently available versions of the Catholic Bible:
The Douay-Rheims
The Confraternity Edition
The New American Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible
The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
The New Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version (The Good New Bible)
In the South, most bookstores are run by Protestants, and so they generally will not carry Catholic Bibles. (Some might include the Deuterocanonicals in a section called “Apocrypha”) However, ANY regular bookstore, like Barnes and Noble, Borders, Books-a-Million, and so on, should carry them. In fact, the Catholic Bible is the best-selling book worldwide of ALL TIME.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I like the RSV
The NRSV and the NAB…blah
S
SIA
Guest
Did you know that the Douay Rheims version was revised more times than the King James version of the Bible?
R
Richard_1
Guest
All Jews accepted the 7 dueteroconanical books until the JEWISH (not Christian) council of Jamnia in around 100 A.D. where they rejected the septuagint O.T… At this council they also declared Christ as not divine. So go ahead and listen to the early Jewish councils if you wish. I will listen to the Christian where they are included. God Bless.
R
Rolltide
Guest
But… if you didn’t know that there was a difference (which many people don’t), you wouldn’t know to look for it. “Christian” bookstore is usually a codeword for “Protestant Christian” bookstore. Catholic bookstores usually identify themselves as Catholic, and as a Baptist, you wouldn’t have had much cause to go into one before, assuming that you could even find one in the South…
The KJV is probably the most famous English version of the Bible, mainly because of its poetic language. Even most Catholics have heard of it, even if we don’t use it.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
It’s also a codeword for bookstores that sell religious material that is not even remotely Christian. Think Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes.
- Status