Things We Believe That Aren't In The Bible

[inkaneer]

Do they disagree on the use of the Tanakh? Oh, I see. You’re referring to the first-century Greek-speaking Jews who tended to use the Septuagint. They probably used the Septuagint because it’s in Greek and that’s the language they spoke. What I don’t think is that it indicates a disagreement among Jews as to whether or not they should add some books to the ones they knew were inspired by God…

Thanks to Alexander the Great Greek was the universal language. Commerce in the Mediterranean was done in Greek. Because of this The Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek and became Known as the Septuagint. This occurred in about 200-250 BC depending on what source one uses. But you are wrong in stating that books were added to the Septuagint, The Hebrew scriptures contained the same books as did the Septuagint until about 90 AD when the Hebrew scriptures dropped seven books. But through out the life of Jesus the two were identical.

Of course, the use of the Septuagint among Jews declined drastically when most Jews in the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire were “somehow” displaced and wound up in the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire. This supports the assertion that the Greek-speaking Jews who used the Septuagint did so out of necessity and perhaps as an effort to contribute something to Hellenistic culture in its own language, not because there was a significant plurality of opinion among Jews as to which books of the Bible actually had divine origins.

Look pal plagiarizing is a crime. If you are going to quote Wikipedia then do so properly. Also do it correctly and leave nothing out. For instance Wikipedia says that the reason Jews quit usiing the septuagint was because it was being used by a rival religion. Who was that rival religion? CHRISTIANITY, that’s who. By the way the hebrew scriptures complete with 46 books is still used today by is still in use among some Jews to this day such as the Ethiopian Jews.

Because they’re God’s chosen people (still are, by the way) and it was to them that the OT was given. How is your preceding comment anything other than an example of the genetic fallacy?.

The Apostles were to convert the Jews before they were to go out to the world. That point was reached in Acts when Peter had his vision. So the Jews who remained were not only the ones who rejected the Gospel but they were the ones who persecuted the christians. So why would any christian abide by what they said and not what the christian church said?

It is true that the Septuagint, over the course of several hundred years, saw the gradual addition of several books to it. Now a few questions for you…

THIS IS FALSE. There is not one reputable bible scholar be they Catholic or Protestant who maintains this lie. All of them state that the originally the Hebrew scriptures contained the same number of books as the Septuagint. It was the Hebrew scriptures that were changed not the Septuagint. Oddly enough the Hebrew scriptures were changed to prevent the “new writings” from being included. And what were these “new writings”? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among others. The Jews tried to block the New Testament from being added.

Were these books regarded in just the same way as all the others? Was any differentiation made between the ones that became your deuterocanonicals and the ones that Jews have always known were God-inspired? You may want to look into the word Anagignoskomena as you answer these questions. It fits the classic idea that these books not found in the Hebrew Tanakh are to be read as instruction, devotion, and example, but not to establish doctrine. This is a distinction practiced by some Roman Catholic authorities before the Council of Trent, the Anglican Church, and at least part of the Orthodox church.

There is no standard as to how a book is regarded. Look at the NT book of Philemon. Is that regarded the same as other epistles of Paul? Yet you say it is inspired, don’t you? WHY? As for Anagignoskomena take that up with the Orthodox. We use the deuterocanonical. As for the Tanahk the deuteros were part of the Tanakh until they were removed by anti christian Jews.

Who added these books to the Septuagint? Can you cite names and general time periods? How would you assess the process of their addition? Do you have any reason to believe the Holy Spirit was guiding these additions? And isn’t that a moot point if they weren’t actually regarded as definitively God-inspired along with all the others?

No one really fought over it, but it wasn’t universally agreed upon. Some Roman Catholic leaders were among those who supported using the anagignoskomena as the Jews used it. Certain orthodox leaders, as well, but more on the Roman side.

Didn’t most Christians (ie., Augustine) wrongly believe the Septuagint was a divinely inspired translation and (a false story) that 70 translators worked independently in producing 70 identical translations? As Augustine was the one presiding over the Councils of Carthage, shouldn’t his erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint cause you to question whether or not he and his colleagues (mostly identical to him in their erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint) made a good decision in saying the anagignoskomena is just the same as every other part of the Septuagint?

No one added anything to the Septuagint. You keep repeating this lie. Also Augustine did not preside over the councils at Carthage. Augustine was the bishop of Hippo not Carthage.

 

[inkaneer]

Have you ever seen a translation that accurately translates these passages on “binding and loosing”? If so, which ones? If you wonder why I ask this, it’s because nearly every translation of the Bible gets these verses wrong. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve ever even seen one that does an adequate job with these verses.

Well the KJV has it as:

“18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
[Mt 16:18-19]

It that adequate enough for you? It certainly is protestant enough.

If you haven’t- and I don’t think you have, nor would you even know the difference- that makes everything a bit less clear for you.

Actually, I take that back. One thing would still be very clear- that your purpose in quoting Scripture is to use it as a proof-text in order to create the illusion that CC teaching either flows from or agrees with Scripture. What becomes far less clear is how you can keep kidding yourself about this whole process when it becomes equally clear (to you) that the passages you always cite as proof-texts for Church authority don’t really mean what you always thought they meant and yet this doesn’t change the conclusions you draw from them or the way you use them.

Well then please enlighten us as to where you received the authority to be the infallible interpreter of scripture. If Jesus did not give it to the Apostles then who did He give it to, YOU? LOL! Now that is funny!!! I love how you protestants rant and rave about the pope and yet you have the unmitigated gall in claiming that you have the same infallibility.

Again, I don’t have a denomination. There is a church I belong to, though. It’s the Body of Christ. And yet I’m not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Funny how that works.

Or doesn’t work. Jesus said, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” [Mt 15:9] KJV If the Body of Christ is the church that Jesus established and one is not a part of that church how can they be in the Body of Christ? You don’t have a church or a denomination

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The Canon is 72/3 books today because Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose and Peter the keys of Heaven. He took power from the Pharisees/Sanhedrin and gave it to His Apostles, where the canon of the Scripture was debated by the School of Pharisees and Saducees, Hellenists…etc in His Day, His Apostles and their disciples recognized these 72 books, and even quoted from them in the 2nd century. Did you know some Pharisees rejected the book of Ecclesiastes, others after Christ called into question the canonicity of the book of the Prophet Ezekiel and others.

The New Testament does not seems to tackle the issue of the Canon, other than to reject the Saducce’s tiny canon, in fact some of the quotes the bible quotes as scripture are not found at all, whereas other quotes are a Midrash of Scripture. However, I have read Rabbinic scholars like Risto Santala that do say the NT, even Jesus allude to deutrocanonical works like Wisdom.

Some of St Paul’s epistles seem to be similar to Sirach, Hebrew alludes to an event in 1 Maccabees. However, St Jude quotes Enoch in which the Book of Enoch preserved. Not to mention that in the New Testament there times where rabbinical sources seem to be quoted and philosophers are quoted likewise.

BTW the books proper to the Septuagint is debated, since some of the modern Septuagint according to some has books by Jews that are written during or after the time of Christ. The Catholic Church does not accept books “because of the Septuagint” and neither does the Orthodox Church as I have been told, the Orthodox have not formally and ecumenically defined the Canon of Scripture, though they do typically use the canon found in the modern LXX.

 

[TobyLue]

I have not through all the thread but I just wanted to ask a question and make some comments.
There is all this discussion about why Catholics believe things that are not in the Bible and some have answered with replies of where is a book in the bible that lists all the books in the bible, etc. etc.
I believe that the question that begs an answer from Protestants is why they NOT believe certain things that are NOT in the bible. After all there are many things that are not specifically taught in the bible but were taught BEFORE we had the Bible and were believed for some 1500 years by The Church throughout the known world until the Reformation. Then everybody started interpreting scripture on their own and if they didn’t agree with somebody they went out and founded their own church and then if others didn’t agree with them, they went and found they own church too and so on and so on until today we have hundreds if not thousands (I refuse to use the 30,000 commonly used by many)of different interpretations. However, that process continues to this day.

Here is one for example. Throughout the early days of the Church until the Reformation, babies were baptized. The only disagreement was how soon should a child be baptized. Now, nowhere does it “specifically” say in the bible that infants should be baptized but we know it was a practice since the early days of the Church. Example: Hippolytus “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).This is just one of many.
What about prayers to Mary. They were accepted long before the bible was compiled Example:
Sub tuum Praesidium (The Oldest Known Prayer to the Virgin Mary found in Greek Papyrus c 300 AD.)
We turn to you for protection, Holy Mother of God. Listen to our prayers and help us in our needs. Save us from every danger, glorious and Blessed Virgin. This was before the bible was Canonized at the Council of Rome in 382.
Yet, you do not find any of the Early Church Fathers or the Church for that matter (remember there were no Protestant Church back then and only ONE Church) coming out against these prayers. Yes there was the heresy of Collyridianism but it was **put down by the THE CHURCH in 432.
How about Purgatory? Some of the Early Church Fathers wrote about prayers for the dead “…he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God”.(Origen) They didn’t use the word “purgatory” but the concept was there.
So maybe the question should be asked is why do Protestants not follow the Early Church and believe in the Teachings of the Early Church instead of following the heresies of the Reformation.

 

[The_Reginator]

I have not through all the thread but I just wanted to ask a question and make some comments.
There is all this discussion about why Catholics believe things that are not in the Bible and some have answered with replies of where is a book in the bible that lists all the books in the bible, etc. etc.
I believe that the question that begs an answer from Protestants is why they NOT believe certain things that are NOT in the bible. After all there are many things that are not specifically taught in the bible but were taught BEFORE we had the Bible and were believed for some 1500 years by The Church throughout the known world until the Reformation. Then everybody started interpreting scripture on their own and if they didn’t agree with somebody they went out and founded their own church and then if others didn’t agree with them, they went and found they own church too and so on and so on until today we have hundreds if not thousands (I refuse to use the 30,000 commonly used by many)of different interpretations. However, that process continues to this day.

Here is one for example. Throughout the early days of the Church until the Reformation, babies were baptized. The only disagreement was how soon should a child be baptized. Now, nowhere does it “specifically” say in the bible that infants should be baptized but we know it was a practice since the early days of the Church. Example: Hippolytus “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).This is just one of many.
What about prayers to Mary. They were accepted long before the bible was compiled Example:
Sub tuum Praesidium (The Oldest Known Prayer to the Virgin Mary found in Greek Papyrus c 300 AD.)
We turn to you for protection, Holy Mother of God. Listen to our prayers and help us in our needs. Save us from every danger, glorious and Blessed Virgin. This was before the bible was Canonized at the Council of Rome in 382.
Yet, you do not find any of the Early Church Fathers or the Church for that matter (remember there were no Protestant Church back then and only ONE Church) coming out against these prayers. Yes there was the heresy of Collyridianism but it was **put down by the THE CHURCH in 432.
How about Purgatory? Some of the Early Church Fathers wrote about prayers for the dead “…he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God”.(Origen) They didn’t use the word “purgatory” but the concept was there.
So maybe the question should be asked is why do Protestants not follow the Early Church and believe in the Teachings of the Early Church instead of following the heresies of the Reformation.

Good post TobyLue!

 

[twb1621]

…

Originally Posted by twb1621

Also, what anti-Catholic author wrote what you refer to and what credible ancient sources did he research to derive this opinion you make claim?

MMM Response: Child please.

Oh comeon MMM… “child please” is not a reasonable let alone credible answer and you have totally avoided responding to the majority of points I offered against your claims.

Originally Posted by twb1621

Would you like references of Christ’s teachings that show relation to the Septuagint and what you refer to as apocrypha?

MMM Response: No thanks, I know my way around that kind of thing.

That answer is an obvious way around the question but does not show any recognition or understanding of the subject by you in this regard. I thought we were having an honest discussion rather than; one makes unsubstantiated accusations against Catholicism, then plays bob-and-weave when called on for credible support.

MMM quote: Ok, those were the only questions you had. Now I have just one for you. Let’s keep it real simple.

Actually I was referring not only to my most recent post but to previous posts (several) as well, that you had not responded to. But keeping with this most recent post, it contained more than two issues I presented in rebuttal to your position.

The anagignoskomena (as it was called by those Hellenistic Jews) consists of the books found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. These books are regarded as canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are not regarded as canonical by any of the Jews or, later on, by Protestants. I can handle that. You either want it or you don’t. But with the Catholic canon, you take some (7 of them, to be exact) and leave others out.

Why? That is my question for you. Why take some and not others?

Your response here is evasive to the points but if it means the difference between you converting to Catholicism or not I am going to have to “call” you on this one… if you will furnish me the books you refer to as being removed, which I am sure you have the list of, I will do everything within my ability to respond to your question.

I know you’d rather talk about why the Septuagint is your go-to source, but it doesn’t make very much sense for you to talk about that until you explain why you take some of it but leave other parts out.

MMM… I’d rather discuss any Christian issue in honesty rather than merely having to defend unsupported accusations, but that doesn’t happen as frequently as I would prefer. Consider this also, common sense dictates if you are to question the authenticity of the Biblical books included in or rejected from the OT, you then question the same of the NT. The same men who we acknowledge were guided by the Holy Spirit to determine the true, Inspired Word of God decided all the content. With that said, you haven’t explained how references by Jesus and the apostles in the NT could be made to scriptural sources included only in the Septuagint but that are not included as part of the “Hebrew Bible” as you say. If those books were referred to by Jesus and the apostles as the NT shows but later were eliminated from the Hebrew texts, I ask you explain how one can claim to be Christian but object to Jesus’ and the apostles use of the Septuagint and adopt the Hebrew Texts written after 70 CE by those who reject Jesus as the Messiah…

 

[twb1621]

The anagignoskomena (as it was called by those Hellenistic Jews) consists of the books found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. These books are regarded as canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are not regarded as canonical by any of the Jews or, later on, by Protestants. I can handle that. You either want it or you don’t. But with the Catholic canon, you take some (7 of them, to be exact) and leave others out.

Why? That is my question for you. Why take some and not others?

Initially I must point out that the canon of the Bible was established and closed centuries before the division of the Eastern and Western Churches. Add to that the ever growing interest of all Catholicism including that of the Orthodox in recent years for reunification with the Western Church under the papacy (a modern point of friction in the Orthodox Churches) and your concern here may well become mute. This “friction” is evident in some Orthodox web sites.
Regardless, any changes in content made after the established canon violated the faith and trust in the recognized Inspired Word of God and if respected would call all of scripture into question.
Although you have not provided the books in question, the following should clearly answer your question and from an Orthodox perspective so as not to generate accusations that the source is biased.
“…the Orthodox have issued from time to time official doctrinal statements concerning the Bible, which under certain theological conditions can lend authority to the Orthodox perspective of the Canon and authority of the Bible. These are the canons of certain local synods (Laodicea, Carthage etc.) and of some Fathers (Athanasios, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzos., Amphilochios of Iconion), whose canonical status became universal (ecumenical) through the decisions of the famous Penthekti Council in Troullos (691/2 ce.). But all these canons leave the issue of the number of the canonical books of the O.T., (in some way [e.g. Apocalypse] of the N.T. too) unsettled. It may not be an exaggeration to state that the undivided Church has not solved the issue of, and therefore not imposed upon her members, a canon of the Bible.”

Continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

mmmcounts:
The anagignoskomena …

Why? That is my question for you. Why take some and not others?

Continued from previous post;
“(b) With regard to the O.T. – together with the Catholics the Protestants and the Jews – for sure the 38 books of the tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures), separating Esra and Nehemiah and making a total of 39. The only difference from all the above is that the official version in the Orthodox Church is not the Hebrew original, called the Masoretic text, but the Septuaginta. In addition to those – together with the Catholics – the Orthodox Church, following the tradition of the Early Church, has added 10 more books in the canon, which are called *Anagignoskomena *(i.e. Readable, namely worthy of reading). As in the Catholic Church, these are neither of secondary authority (i.e. Deuterocanonical, a term invented in the 16th century by Sixtus of Siena), nor *Apocrypha *(i.e. *non canonical, as in the Protestant Churches), a term which in the ancient Christian tradition was given to other books (the Book of Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, etc.) whose authority was rejected by the Church. Those are the books the Protestants normally call Pseudepigrapha. Some Orthodox scholars, under the influence of modern scholarship and terminology, apply to them alternately the term (wrongly in my view) Deuterocanonical. In view, however, of their wide use in the liturgy their authority can hardly be differentiated from the so-called canonical books of the Bible. It is also to be noted in addition that the Orthodox Anagignoskomena do not exactly coincide with the Deuterocanonical books (only seven) of the Catholic Bible."
"To sum up: (a) with regard to the text the Orthodox accept the authenticity (some like Oikonomos ex Oikonomon even their inspiration!) of the Greek translation of the Septuaginta; (b) with regard to the number of the Anagignoskomena, these are the Catholic Deuterocanonical, plus Maccabees 3 and Esdras, and dividing Baruch from the Epistle of Jeremiah. There are some additional texts that are normally taken up in the Orthodox Bibles, and are either accorded some value (like the Prayer of Manasses and Psalm 151) or added as appendices (like Maccabees 4 in the Greek version alone, or (the Deuterocanonical) Esdras 2 in the Slavonic version alone); (c) with regard to the sequence, as well as the naming, of the 49 books these are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (=Pentateuch), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Vasileion (Regnorum) 1 and 2 (=Samuel 1 and 2), Vasileion *(Regnorum) 3 and4 (=Kings 1 and 2), *Paralipomenon *1 and 2 (Chronicles 1 and 2), *Esdras *1 (=Deuterocanonical), *Esdras *2 and Nehemiah (=the canonical Esra), Esther (together with the Deuterocanonical additions), Judith (=Deuterocanonical), Tobit (=Deuterocanonical), [some editions (e.g. the 1928 Bratsiotis edition) follow the order cod. B and A, i.e. Tobit, Judith, Esther], Maccabees 1 and 2 (=Deuterocanonical), *and 3, *Psalms (in some editions plus Psalm 151 and the 9 Odes and the Prayer of Manasses), Job [in some editions after the Song of Songs], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon (=Deuterocanonical), Wisdom of Siracides (=Deuterocanonical), 12 Minor Prophets (starting with Hosea and ending with Malachias), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch (=Deuterocanonical), Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah (=Deuterocanonical), Ezekiel, Daniel (together with the Deuterocanonical additions, i.e. Susana, the Prayer of Azariah and the Songs of the Three Youths, and the story of Bel and Dragon), and Maccabees 4 (as an appendix in the Greek versions only, whereas the Slavonic version, probably under western influence, contains also the 2nd Deuterocanonical Esdras).”

Source: **INSPIRATION, CANON AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE: AN ORTHODOX HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE **
I hope this sheds some light for you.