What are the books that protestants took out of the Bible?

[Peter_J]

I’m sure that you would like nothing more than to force feed the notion that the Catholic church created, assembled … the Scriptures

For many of us, the question of whether the Catholic Church created and assembled the Scriptures is easy to answer: Yes. The difficult question is where the Catholic Church can be found … in the RCC? in the Eastern Orthodox Church? in more than one denomination (i.e. Branch Theory)?

To this second, more difficult, question I take the first answer, the RCC (although I certainly respect those who go with one of those other 2 answers).

 

[CAS64]

For many of us, the question of whether the Catholic Church created and assembled the Scriptures is easy to answer: Yes. The difficult question is where the Catholic Church can be found … in the RCC? in the Eastern Orthodox Church? in more than one denomination (i.e. Branch Theory)?

To this second, more difficult, question I take the first answer, the RCC (although I certainly respect those who go with one of those other 2 answers).

And I don’t agree. There are those in the Roman faith that are of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but the one true Church is not exculsively the Roman church.

 

[CAS64]

I’m sorry it was not meant to be insulting, the question though is who did assemble the bible. Do you have any resource other then Church councils.

Those were the councils of the Early Church, not the Roman Catholic church as we know it today. And besides, who cares who assembled the already inspired and written Word of God?

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks for those examples.

Baruch says that the Jews would serve Babylon for 7 generations. Jeremiah says 70 years.

To be perfectly honest, that discrepancy doesn’t seem to prove anything.

Macc 8:10 Nicanor wanted to pay 2,000 talents to the Romans, the Seleucids were not under the authority or the Romans.

You’ll have to help me out here; it’s been a while since I read Maccabees. (I didn’t even remember that there was a Nicanor.)

 

[CWBetts]

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

I hate to disagree, but I have a Jewish friend who was stunned when she found iut Protestant Bibles were missing the books. They are part of the Jewish canon.

 

[Chellow]

Those were the councils of the Early Church, not the Roman Catholic church as we know it today. And besides, who cares who assembled the already inspired and written Word of God?

Well if I assembled the bible I have finial authority of what goes in and what is removed.

And I don’t agree. There are those in the Roman faith that are of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but the one true Church is not exculsively the Roman church.

The Roman Church did not assemble the bible it was the Catholic Church, both East and West.

 

[CAS64]

Well if I assembled the bible I have finial authority of what goes in and what is removed.

So then the Holy Spirit’s discerning had nothing to do with it then?

 

[SyCarl]

Could you give just a few good examples?

2 Maccabees has Antiochus Epiphanes dying on 2 occasions.

For Antiochus, with his friends, came to the place as though he would marry her, and that he might receive great sums of money under the title of a dowry. And when the priests of Nanea had set it forth, and he with a small company had entered into the compass of the temple, they shut the temple, When Antiochus was come in: and opening a secret entrance of the temple, they cast stones and slew the leader, and them that were with him, and hewed them in pieces; and cutting off their heads, they threw them forth.
(2 Maccabees 1:14-16 DRB)

and

At that time Antiochus returned with dishonour out of Persia. For he had entered into the city called Persepolis, and attempted to rob the temple, and to oppress the city, but the multitude running together to arms, put them to flight: and so it fell out that Antiochus being put to flight, returned with disgrace. Now when he was come about Ecbatana, he received the news of what had happened to Nicanor and Timotheus. And swelling with anger, he thought to revenge upon the Jews the injury done by them that had put him to flight. And therefore he commanded his chariot to be driven, without stopping in his journey, the judgment of heaven urging him forward, because he had spoken so proudly, that he would come to Jerusalem, and make it a common burying place of the Jews. But the Lord, the God of Israel, that seeth all things, struck him with an incurable and an invisible plague. For as soon as he had ended these words, a dreadful pain in his bowels came upon him, and bitter torments of the inner parts. And indeed very justly, seeing he had tormented the bowels of others with many and new torments, albeit he by no means ceased from his malice. Moreover, being filled with pride, breathing out fire in his rage against the Jews, and commanding the matter to be hastened, it happened as he was going with violence, that he fell from the chariot, so that his limbs were much pained by a grievous bruising of the body. Thus he that seemed to himself to command even the waves of the sea, being proud above the condition of man, and to weigh the heights of the mountains in a balance, now being cast down to the ground, was carried in a litter, bearing witness to the manifest power of God in himself: So that worms swarmed out of the body of this man, and whilst he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell off, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to the army. And the man that thought a little before he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure to carry, for the intolerable stench. And by this means, being brought from his great pride, he began to come to the knowledge of himself, being admonished by the scourge of God, his pains increasing every moment.
(2 Maccabees 9:1-11 DRB)

Thus the murderer and blasphemer being grievously struck, as himself had treated others, died a miserable death in a strange country, among the mountains.
(2 Maccabees 9:28 DRB)

The discrepancy is recognized in the Haydock Commentary which offers a rather feeble explanation.

2Ma 1:16 Slew. Literally, “struck.” Greek, “stoned.” Yet Epiphanes escaped, (chap. x. 9., and 1 Machabees vi.) having received some wounds. But a fall from his chariot, and vexation, hastened his death. (Haydock) — Some of his followers, who had advanced farther into the temple, perished. (Calmet)

 

[Chellow]

CAS64:
The Holy Spirit guided the Church in to selecting the book that the protestants removed (Jn 14:16, 26) - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything.

 

[CAS64]

The Holy Spirit guided the Church in to selecting the book that the protestants removed (Jn 14:16, 26) - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything.

What about the books that the Orthodox church has that you don’t? Are those not guided into the Bible by the Holy Spirit?

 

[CWBetts]

I know I am joining my this thread late. The reason the Deuterocanonicals are rejected has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It has everything to with authority. People have always had a problem with authority. I can quote Scripture that shows we are to submit to the authority of the Church until I am blue in the face, but the simple fact is that the reason that the reformation happened is that the reformers did not want to submit to the Pope. The reason we have thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations is that somebody does not want to submit to the denomiational governing body, so they make a new one. Non-denomiationals are just a short step from agnostics and atheists in this contimuum, because they deny any earthly authority. They refuse to submit to even a Congress, Synod, or whatever. Atheists don’t want to have to morally submit to anyone, even God. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is: abortion, gay marriage, contraception, or what ever. All it is ever really is about is authority

 

[SyCarl]

Could you give just a few good examples?

Sirach counsels divorce contrary to the rest of the Scriptures.

Feeble hands, and disjointed knees, a woman that doth not make her husband happy. From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. Give no issue to thy water, no, not a little: nor to a wicked woman liberty to gad abroad. If she walk not at thy hand, she will confound thee in the sight of thy enemies. Cut her off from thy flesh, lest she always abuse thee.
(Sirach 25:32-36 DRB)

And the Haydock Commentary on it.

Sir 25:35 She will. Greek, “cut her off from thy flesh.” Grabe and Complutensian add, (Haydock) “give a bill of divorce or her dowry, and send her away.” (Calmet)

 

[CAS64]

I know I am joining my this thread late. The reason the Deuterocanonicals are rejected has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It has everything to with authority. People have always had a problem with authority. I can quote Scripture that shows we are to submit to the authority of the Church until I am blue in the face, but the simple fact is that the reason that the reformation happened is that the reformers did not want to submit to the Pope. The reason we have thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations is that somebody does not want to submit to the denomiational governing body, so they make a new one. Non-denomiationals are just a short step from agnostics and atheists in this contimuum, because they deny any earthly authority. They refuse to submit to even a Congress, Synod, or whatever. Atheists don’t want to have to morally submit to anyone, even God. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is: abortion, gay marriage, contraception, or what ever. All it is ever really is about is authority

Catholics seem to wrecklessly throw terms around that they shouldn’t. Some Protestants such as Anglicans don’t flat out reject the Apocrypha. They say that it is useful in instances such as historical information, but it doesn’t carry the authority Scripture does for obvious reasons.

 

[Chellow]

What about the books that the Orthodox church has that you don’t? Are those not guided into the Bible by the Holy Spirit?

Some post back you will find that the Orthodox Church may have the same books, but they may include more like some Protestants do as an appendix. I may be wrong.

 

[CAS64]

Sirach counsels divorce contrary to the rest of the Scriptures.

And the Haydock Commentary on it.

More good points that I have yet to see a rebuttal on.

 

[CAS64]

Some post back you will find that the Orthodox Church may have the same books, but they may include more like some Protestants do as an appendix. I may be wrong.

Well the point here is that the Catholic church isn’t the final authority on Scripture. God is.

 

[CWBetts]

And Jesus clarifies this in Matthew 5:31-32. This is not the only OT passage Jesus says had been misapplied. Reread the Sermon on the Mount. If this nullifies Sirach, then does Mtt 5:27 nullify Exodus? Everything must be applied consistently. If you throw out Sirach for this reason, then Exodus must go too.

 

[CWBetts]

Well the point here is that the Catholic church isn’t the final authority on Scripture. God is.

And the Catholic Church speaks for God.

 

[SyCarl]

As noted previously, even Pope Gregory the Great referred to 1 Maccabees as not canonical.

Gregory the Great

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.

An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34
lectionarycentral.com/Gre…ia/Book19.html

He is referring to 1 Maccabees as not canonical.

And Eleazar, the son of Saura, saw one of the beasts harnessed with the king’s harness: and it was higher than the other beasts; and it seemed to him that the king was on it: And he exposed himself to deliver his people, and to get himself an everlasting name. And he ran up to it boldly in the midst of the legion, killing on the right hand, and on the left, and they fell by him on this side and that side. And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himself under it: and slew it, and it fell to the ground upon him, and he died there.
(1 Maccabees 6:43-46 DRB)

Surely a pope would have been aware is a book had been defined as canonical by the Church.

 

[CAS64]

And the Catholic Church speaks for God.

That’s a joke.