The Bible is Catholic -

[joe370]

I am far from feeling ‘over-whelmed,’ it is just a physical matter of only having so much time to visit here.

The one question I will be interested most in from above is one which I have been intending to address anyways.

But in order for me to competently discuss this; I need to answer, initially, with a question. I would like to ask that interested members in this question post their own answers to this question, using official references from Catholic writings. In particular, I would like to see if the Catholic Church Catechism would detail the answer to this question of who codified the Bible. Of course, other writings which you consider ‘inspired’ would be welcome, but the two I am most interested in would be either the Catechism or the Bible. It will likely be a few days before I get back here. So take your time, and give me some good answers!!

Sounds like fun; see you in a few days. God bless!!!

 

[po18guy]

As I recall the first KJV (1611 KJV) had the 7 Deutero-Canonical books included. Go figure…

They’re even Protesting Luther!!! :bigyikes: Your was a succinct retort to such an “erudite” assertion.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Simple the catholics added books that were not there before.

How do we know this, because the Jews had the old testament before we did and they do not have the books in their old testament that the catholics mysteriously propped in there.

** I think you should go back and re-read the previous threads, you will find your history,is a bit out of whack. Study where the septuagint came from, find out why the jews in the second century at a council in Jamnia, removed 7 of the old testament books of the bible, that the Roman Catholic church keep them in the bible because Jesus quoted from them, the Jews tried to discredit Jesus as a false prophet, by rejecting the 7 books from the old testament he quoted from because the hebrew text was not available until 1947. Luther removed them again 1800 years later for the same reason no hebrew counterparts.

So your mystery Sublime Prince has been solved here, Catholics did not add books, Jews and Protestants took them out of the old testament. I pray you dont make this mysterious blunder again. Before you accuse the 2000 year old Roman Catholic church of something, can you bring some proof or facts here, without mysteries? **

King James Bibles presever the old Jewish testament before the Catholic church decided to throw books in their that serve no purpose and were no part of the origional Torah the Jews had.

** I must agree with you Sublime Prince, you are correct the King James version of the bible did exactly what the second century Jews did, removed 7 books from the bible. The Catholic church Preserved both the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament which included the 7 books rejected by the Jews and King James Version. These books do serve the Torah, because Jesus fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets, and the New testament quotes from these 7 missing books from the King James version.**

King James Bibles are by far the best , no other bible can match.

** That is very kind of you to state that, because the King James is recognized by Catholics as a version of the Original Holy bible because that is where the King James version came from the Catholic church, it is just incomplete, and is missing 7 books **

**I have to agree with you again my Sublime Prince, No other true Holy bible would dare want to match the King James version by. missing 7 God breathed books of the bible. Yes the King James version of the bible is by far the most incomplete God breathed bible in all of what? only existed for 400 years +. while the Holy bible has been around after the Cathoic church put the books together since the third century.

Peace be with you.**

 

[Linda_Marie]

Simple the catholics added books that were not there before.

How do we know this, because the Jews had the old testament before we did and they do not have the books in their old testament that the catholics mysteriously propped in there.

King James Bibles presever the old Jewish testament before the Catholic church decided to throw books in their that serve no purpose and were no part of the origional Torah the Jews had.

King James Bibles are by far the best , no other bible can match.

Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint. We know this because of how many times it is quoted in the New Testament. If it was good enough for them, it is good enough for me.

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament by James Akin

The Torah is the first 5 books only - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The Sadducees accepted nothing but the Torah. The Pharisees accepted the Prophets and the Writings as well as the Torah but the Jewish canon was not closed. There was no declaration saying - “These books and no others.” Further, there was no consensus and no authoritative declaration about which books belonged in the their canon. There still isn’t, Council of Jamnia (AD 90 and post-Christ) notwithstanding. The Septuagint is still being used by Ethiopian Jews today just as they did in the time of Jesus.

The King James Bible is written in archaic English which, imo, obscures the meaning of the text and leaves it open to misinterpretation. No one talks that way anymore, so first we have to translate it in our heads to modern English. This could cause all kinds of problems. Just think what the last 50 years have done to the meaning of the word, “cool”. What is it about archaic English that makes people think it is a holy language or something? Moreover, the original King James Version of 1611 contained all the books, the Deuterocanonicals included.

It took many years for the 1611 Version to overtake the Geneva Bible in popularity with the people, but eventually the King James Version became the Bible of the English people. It became the most printed book in the history of the world. In fact, for around 250 years…until the appearance of the Revised Version of 1881…the King James Version reigned without a rival. During all that time, the authorized version contained the original 80 books (with Apocrypha) of the 1611 version. The Aitken Bible by American Robert Aitken  (a King James Bible but calvinised, americanised) appeared in 1782, but was not recognized as Authorized (so short after Yorktown!!). The Apocrypha was officially removed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885 leaving only 66 books. geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html

So, the Deuterocanons were not ‘mysteriously popped in there’ by the Catholics and the KJV Bible you hold in your hands is not the same as the original published in 1611.

The Canon of Scripture

 

[sambos671]

Simple the catholics added books that were not there before.

How do we know this, because the Jews had the old testament before we did and they do not have the books in their old testament that the catholics mysteriously propped in there.

King James Bibles presever the old Jewish testament before the Catholic church decided to throw books in their that serve no purpose and were no part of the origional Torah the Jews had.

King James Bibles are by far the best , no other bible can match.

I’m sorry but you show a lack of understanding of how the bible came to be. You don’t even understand that the Apostles Quoted from the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures which is the septuigent or LXX. The LXX comes from translated Jewish scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into greek in Alexandria. Alexandria in Egypt was the ancient world’s version of a metropolis and there was a large Jewish community. That Jewish community was hellenized to the point that the average Jew spoke greek. Their scriptures were translated into greek and was dispensed around the known world. The diaspora jews spoke greek. When Paul praises the Boreans for searching scripture he’s talking about the LXX. The LXX contains the “extra books” you are talking about and the earliest christians considered them inspired as well as some other books like the book of Enoch which Jude quotes in his letter. The Jews wanting to deminish Messianic scriptures in their litany of books took out the extra “greek” books settling with the 66 books that the protestant version has. It is interesting to note that the bible KJV has it organized like the LXX but not all the books and are the same that the Jews use. It’s really not so mysterious. By the way why do you think following the Jewish lead on this issue is a good thing? They’re trying to discredit Jesus altogether! Study some history. You’ll find less mysteries.

 

[sambos671]

Also the Torah is only the first five books of the bible our Pentateuch. Are you saying that the books of history, major and minor prophets, poetry, and wisdom writing are wrong? Because the KJV has these too.

 

[mercygate]

Simple the catholics added books that were not there before.

How do we know this, because the Jews had the old testament before we did and they do not have the books in their old testament that the catholics mysteriously propped in there.

King James Bibles presever the old Jewish testament before the Catholic church decided to throw books in their that serve no purpose and were no part of the origional Torah the Jews had.

King James Bibles are by far the best , no other bible can match.

Sublime: this is the most inanely innacurate assertion I have EVER seen on the subject of the Deuterocanonical books. Even Protestants would take you quietly aside and suggest that you do a little research before making such an absurd claim

The original 1611 Authorized Version (KJV) of the Bible contained ALL of the Deuterocanonical Books.

 

[mercygate]

Protestant101

Please share with us the rationale/evidence for your claim that the Bible claims to have existed before the Catholic Church.

 

[Lilyflower]

Protestant 101 posted:

but the two I am most interested in would be either the Catechism or the Bible.

So you DO recognise these two great books of the Catholic Church then!

 

[Lilyflower]

I think what Protestant 101 is referring to is some of the Books of the Old Testament which were codified between 450 - 200 BC

 

[Lilyflower]

Protestant101

Please share with us the rationale/evidence for your claim that the Bible claims to have existed before the Catholic Church.

I think Protestant 101 is referring to some of the Books of the Old Testament which were codified between 450 - 200 BC

 

[Lilyflower]

I think Protestant 101 is referring to some of the Books of the Old Testament which were codified between 450 - 200 BC

What is not being acknowledged is the fact that the fathers of the CC codified the Old Testament on the basis of Christ’s command and instrument that unbinds the Hebrew covenant, nullifying the Old Testament that governed it. Thus it may be said that the Old Testament was therefore codified at the SAME TIME as the New Testament. Therefore Protestant 101 is wholly incorrect to argue that the Bible existed before the Catholic Church.

Jesus took the keys of the Kingdom from the Jewish High Priests and gave them to Peter and through him the Apostolic body and their successors.

With Christ’s authorisation that heaven would bind itself to their choices Mt 16:18-19, it becomes a case-closed situation.

The questions still remain: 'by what authority did Luther Re-order the Books of the Old Testament? Where in Scripture is it written which permitted Luther to do this?

Equally 'by what authority did the JW’s and Mormons change the meanings of certain passages of Scripture in breach of the codification?

 

[mercygate]

I think Protestant 101 is referring to some of the Books of the Old Testament which were codified between 450 - 200 BC

P-101’s claim was that the Bible itself CLAIMS to have existed before the Church. He may have phrased his statement ambiguously. But that WAS the claim.

Since the Saducees accepted only 5 books, and the Pharisees of the first century used the Septuagint, and since the Jewish canon at the time of Christ was still open, it is important to figure out what we’re talking about.

 

[JRKH]

Unfortunately; Catholics here have been either unable or unwilling to provide us with one teaching from the Protestant Canon which is made “MORE COMPLETE” by something in the Apocrypha, which I have requested quite a number of times. That is all the proof I need; but there is lots more too.

If, as you say that the Bible is “not complete” without the Apocrypha books, then you indirectly concede that these must be in agreement with all doctrines in the Protestant Canon. This has not been shown to be the case.

There are two issues here.
The main one being that, by rejecting the deuterocanonical books, and having studied exlusively from a Bible from which they are excluded, you have been denied the opportunity to learn how these fit in with doctrinal issues. One such example is purgatory. You, due to your “incomplete” Bible, reject the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead, whereas we, because we are blessed with the complete Bible can go to a number of verses in both the OLD and New Testaments including 2 Maccabees Chapter 12 vs 43-46 and find the idea of praying for the dead and forgiveness of sin after death is be clearly present.

From the CCC:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439)-DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563)-DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336)-DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.
609 2 Macc 12:46.
610 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274)-DS 856.
611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5G 61,361; cf. Job 1:5.

The second aspect of this is that Jesus Himself as well as the Apostles in their letters reference the Deuterpocanonicals in many places. You may look HERE for the many places in both the Gospels and the Epistles where the Deutero’s are referenced.
By removing the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible, the Protestants removed Books that Our Lord Himself considered to be Holy Scripture.

Now in order for you Protestant101 to see how having these books would make your Canon, “More Complete”, you need to take off the protestant blinders and recognize and accept that, if it was good enough for Jesus to use, it should be good enough for you.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Unfortunately; Catholics here have been either unable or unwilling to provide us with one teaching from the Protestant Canon which is made “MORE COMPLETE” by something in the Apocrypha, which I have requested quite a number of times. That is all the proof I need; but there is lots more too.

** Maybe if you can supply us with a Protestant Canon? and by what authority did the Protestant approve their canon?

To me you ask an easy question, to provide you with a teaching from a Protestant canon if you can tell me by what authority it exists? and I would be happy to give you a teaching that Jesus taught using the apocrpha books, and finding these teachings in the New testament.

If I were you; I wouldnt rest all the proof just on this, because I dont see no problem entertaining you. Because their is a lot more that can convince you of the Truth of Jesus’s One Holy Catholic Apostolic church if you are resptive to the Truth.

Peace be with you**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JRKH, mercygate, Gabriel, ibkc, and po18guy,
I am in awe of your research and knowledge and the clarity of your expression in this thread. I am not in the same universe as all of you. I am immensely appreciative of your efforts here.
You should collaborate and write a book based on this thread!!!
God Bless.
Ron

Ronald E; You are most bless’d to be able to discern these threads, the Holy Spirit is working in all of us. I dont qualify as an author, for the fact that what I post here, has already been written, and the Catholic faith is unbroken 2000 years of Christian Tradition, My prayer here is that all I do is give what has been given to me; Truth in Jesus and his Roman Catholic church.

Thank you and Peace be with you.

 

[Protestant101]

There are two issues here.
The main one being that, by rejecting the deuterocanonical books, and having studied exlusively from a Bible from which they are excluded, you have been denied the opportunity to learn how these fit in with doctrinal issues. One such example is purgatory. You, due to your “incomplete” Bible, reject the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead, whereas we, because we are blessed with the complete Bible can go to a number of verses in both the OLD and New Testaments including 2 Maccabees Chapter 12 vs 43-46 and find the idea of praying for the dead and forgiveness of sin after death is be clearly present.

I do agree; the two issues expressed in this post are applicable here. After some thinking about this; I have decided to start two separate threads to reply to posters who have answered since the last inquiry I made here in this topic. I will put the links here in my next reply - but you may have to wait again for a few days. Time is scarcer than hen’s teeth for me right now. I will be looking forward to exploring more in depth, one point made in post #530, and one point made here in post #532.

I will say though that the so-called “scripture-catholic.com” site does not come close to doing justice to this and many other Biblical topics, but that’s another story, for another thread. I do have a copy of the Apocrypha, and I do read it a bit - but it is not in agreement with the Bible on this topic. But more later! Take care everyone! Be back in a few days again!

PS. Thanks **JRKH **for finally coming up with an actual sample of a doctrine that is in what you call “the complete Bible.” This is just what I have been looking for!! Now we have some “meat and potatoes” to discuss.

 

[mercygate]

I do agree; the two issues expressed in this post are applicable here. After some thinking about this; I have decided to start two separate threads to reply to posters who have answered since the last inquiry I made here in this topic. I will put the links here in my next reply - but you may have to wait again for a few days. Time is scarcer than hen’s teeth for me right now. I will be looking forward to exploring more in depth, one point made in post #530, and one point made here in post #532.

I will say though that the so-called “scripture-catholic.com” site does not come close to doing justice to this and many other Biblical topics, but that’s another story, for another thread. I do have a copy of the Apocrypha, and I do read it a bit - but it is not in agreement with the Bible on this topic. But more later! Take care everyone! Be back in a few days again!

PS. Thanks **JRKH **for finally coming up with an actual sample of a doctrine that is in what you call “the complete Bible.” This is just what I have been looking for!! Now we have some “meat and potatoes” to discuss.

Protestant101, please take a moment out of your busy posting schedule to let us in on the place where scripture itself claims to have existed prior to the Catholic Church. I realize that you may think this is so obvious that it bores you, but it sure would be interesting to me. Thank you.

 

[sambos671]

I do agree; the two issues expressed in this post are applicable here. After some thinking about this; I have decided to start two separate threads to reply to posters who have answered since the last inquiry I made here in this topic. I will put the links here in my next reply - but you may have to wait again for a few days. Time is scarcer than hen’s teeth for me right now. I will be looking forward to exploring more in depth, one point made in post #530, and one point made here in post #532.

I will say though that the so-called “scripture-catholic.com” site does not come close to doing justice to this and many other Biblical topics, but that’s another story, for another thread. I do have a copy of the Apocrypha, and I do read it a bit - but it is not in agreement with the Bible on this topic. But more later! Take care everyone! Be back in a few days again!

PS. Thanks **JRKH **for finally coming up with an actual sample of a doctrine that is in what you call “the complete Bible.” This is just what I have been looking for!! Now we have some “meat and potatoes” to discuss.

I’m not sure what you mean “not in agreement” with the bible. The issue is simply is it authoritative or not should it be cannon? The fact seems that it’s not in agreement with your view of the bible. So what is the bible? The earliest christians referred to the LXX as their authoritative scriptures which includes the apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The Jews (who were tyring very hard at getting away from messianic type scriptures did away with the extra books in the LXX and stood by their Hebrew bible and agreed with their oral tradidition. For the earliest christians and the apostles the LXX seems to be authoritative. How else do we get Jude quoting from Enoch (not apochrypha! out side) or the apostles using the greek translation in their arguments rather than the hebrew or aramaic?

 

[joe370]

I’m not sure what you mean “not in agreement” with the bible. The issue is simply is it authoritative or not should it be cannon? The fact seems that it’s not in agreement with your view of the bible. So what is the bible? The earliest christians referred to the LXX as their authoritative scriptures which includes the apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The Jews (who were tyring very hard at getting away from messianic type scriptures did away with the extra books in the LXX and stood by their Hebrew bible and agreed with their oral tradidition. For the earliest christians and the apostles the LXX seems to be authoritative. How else do we get Jude quoting from Enoch (not apochrypha! out side) or the apostles using the greek translation in their arguments rather than the hebrew or aramaic?

People seem to respond to you. I would love to hear what Mr. Prot. 101 has to say about this very unbiased article!

wasthepoperight.blogspot.com/2007/07/martin-luther-and-bible.html