X
Xochitl_Guzman
Guest
What are the 7 books that protestants took out of the Bible? ( I think it was 7…not too sure) Why?
- Status
S
susanafe
Guest
Baruch, Wisdom. Tobias, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach), 1 & 2 Maccabees. There are also several chapters of the book of Daniel and Esther that were removed. Why? As I understand it Martin Luther questioned these books, and also a few more books that weren’t removed, saying they shouldn’t be included in the Holy Bible. I always wondered why people could accept the fact that someone removed books out of the Scriptures. What gives anyone the authority to do that? Do you mean that for 1500 years the Holy Bible contained error? No, I don’t think I can agree with that.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
With a title like that, this thread should be… entertaining.
God bless
God bless
The deutero canonical (which means of or belonging to the second canon) books, mentioned earlier, have historically been in despute regarding their canonicity, dating back at least as far as Jerome. In Luther’s translation into German, he translated the DC books, but listed them separately in an appendix. Luther, like some before him, believed they were good for reading and study, but should not be used for doctrine, as they were not part of the Jewish scripture. It was later that other protestant groups removed them from their Bibles. I’m no expert on the DC. I’m sure others here are, Catholic, Orthodox, and protestant.
Jon
Does your popcorn have butter?With a title like that, this thread should be… entertaining.
God bless
Jon
C
Chellow
Guest
The deuterocanonical book have never been disputed by the Church since the Council of Carthage in 397. They may have been disputed somewhat by Jerome, Luther and others but not by the Church.
All canonical decision are made by a council of the Church in communion with the Holy See, not by individuals.
Ref:
Councils of Carthage
E
emarc
Guest
let’s not forget that martin luther also wanted the books of james, epistles to the hebrews, of jude and the revelations taken out if not for the moderates who prevailed.
God bless.
N
NDfan
Guest
Wrong the DCs have always been disputed. Even Popes have flat out stated the DCs should never be used for doctrines of faith and only for edification. Your first statement says they haven’t been disputed since 397. Were they disputed before then?? I think so. Have they been since then? Yes most definitely.
E
emarc
Guest
just curious where you are basing your statement. you said “even Popes…” can you give your reference?
God bless.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
You “think so”? Are you guessing here? This is absolutely not true. Please state your source on which popes have “flat out” stated this, and list your source for having been disputed since 397, since you also say “most definitely”.
I’ll be waiting for your answer.:compcoff:
C
Chellow
Guest
Dear bother we will always have a disputes on everything, what in the world has never been on odds with this or that. My point is to have an official dispute on this books would only be in a Church council. Even if you do find something that doesn’t come to not. This books have always been part of the Holy Bible since 397 and never have they been removed by the Church.
I wonder what you would think if someone comes around today and starts removing books like James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation since according to your statement they are deputed books.
Ref:
Luther Bible
As Roman_Catholic implied with his post, this is a very contentious issue, to say the least. So, I’ll offer you a link to an in-depth discussion of the issue from a Lutheran perpective. I would also encourage you to seek reliable Catholic apologetics so you have both sides of the issue. You can make up your on mind, however I would encourage you to stand with your Church’s teachings, just as I do mine. It is an issue that the leaders of our respective communions will need to resolve in dialogue. Pray they do.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
Jon
K
kalt
Guest
The Jews, about 100 years after Jesus died, decided to remove the books. The scriptures used in Jesus’ time and area included those books.
The Jews removed the books because they couldn’t find Hebrew versions of those books.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove that at least some of those books were written in Hebrew.
That really pokes holes in the Jews’, Luther’s, and Protestant’s reasoning, doesn’t it?
And yet they will not admit their mistake and put the books back in the canon. Why? Anti-Catholicism?
Isn’t it senseless to base your scriptures on what you don’t like about Catholicism instead of the truth, like it or not?
kalt,
On the first part, I will let Church leaders decide what the Dead Sea Scrolls say about the canon and the DC, both within Lutheran circles and in dialogue with other communions.
On the second part which I highlighted, it almost seems like you are trying to read the hearts of others, though I can’t imagine that to be the case.
I can’t see a bunch of Lutheran theologians sitting around, discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls, coming to the conclusion that it verifies the canonicity of some or all of the DC books and concluding, “We can’t declare them canon because we hate Catholics.”
Jon
K
kalt
Guest
Maybe it is you who is trying to read the hearts of others in your 2nd paragraph.
Admitting a mistake is not easy. Admitting that the Catholics had it right from the beginning is something even harder, I think.
You didn’t seem to understand what I was saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the books that were pulled out of the canon (because there were no Hebrew versions of them known at the time) were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
If they were pulled out of the canon because there were no Hebrew versions known, and the Hebrew versions are later found, proving that the Hebrew versions did exist, shouldn’t the Bible be restored to its original state?
Obviously, a mistake was made. Those books were written in Hebrew!
And that’s just about the reason they were pulled out. I’m not convinced that not being written in Hebrew is a valid reason tp pull them out in the first place. They were accepted by Jesus, so shouldn’t we accept them?
Absolutely not! I think I made it quite clear that I could not imagine that being the case. You seemed to imply that Lutherans (and others) would not accept evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls because of anti-catholicism. If that was not your intent, then you have confirmed my suspicion that you were not reading the hearts of others. If it was your intent to imply it, then I’m sure you have evidence that Lutherans and others reject said evidence because of anti-catholicism (and said evidece would once again confirm you are not reading other’s hearts). If you do, I would like to see it, as that would certainly have an impact on my continuing in Lutheranism.=kalt;5090647]Maybe it is you who is trying to read the hearts of others in your 2nd paragraph.
That may or may not be the case, but I would expect Lutheran theologians to accept verifiable historical evidence, since Lutherans do not consider the canon necessarily closed.
I did understand, and as I said before, I would trust Lutheran leaders to honestly re-evaluate our understanding of the canon if necessary, particularly in dialogue with other communion, particularly Rome.
I guess that is the crux of the disagreement between our communions. I pray it is resolved.
Jon
I
IowaJay
Guest
The Lutheran confessions do not define the canon. The fact that Bibles used by many Lutherans today do not have the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha is more a custom than a firm belief. Luther personally believed that their canonicity was suspect, but still included them in his German translation. Personally, I no longer buy a Bible that does not have the deuterocanon/apocrypha in it.
A huge pet peeve of mine, however, is whenever I see it written on a site like this, or hear it on EWTN radio, that the contents of the Bible were undisputed for over 1,000 years until Martin Luther came along and on his own whim went against church tradition in disputing the canonicity of these books. That allegation completely ignores the fact that Cardinal Cajetan - the one sent by the Vatican to deal with Luther - also disputed the canonicity of these books, which was well known due to his writings on the subject. So, it is an absolute fallacy to state that the Luther’s actions were without support in the then-existing Catholic Church when the Vatican’s approved emissary held basically the same views as Luther on this subject.
A huge pet peeve of mine, however, is whenever I see it written on a site like this, or hear it on EWTN radio, that the contents of the Bible were undisputed for over 1,000 years until Martin Luther came along and on his own whim went against church tradition in disputing the canonicity of these books. That allegation completely ignores the fact that Cardinal Cajetan - the one sent by the Vatican to deal with Luther - also disputed the canonicity of these books, which was well known due to his writings on the subject. So, it is an absolute fallacy to state that the Luther’s actions were without support in the then-existing Catholic Church when the Vatican’s approved emissary held basically the same views as Luther on this subject.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Well said Iowa Jay, but you will find yourself stating this one in vain. Once OTCA says something, it is law around here. Even if Catholic history disagrees with her.
O+
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Funny, I’m a Protestant, and those books are in MY bible. What the heck…
C
Chellow
Guest
You folks give too much credit to Luther, he died in 1546, but it wasn’t till 1885 that most Protestant removed the deuterocanonical books. My question is why then? Was it that a publishers wish to save ink and paper? Who made this decision to remove them then and why.
- Status