What books were removed from the Bible and why?

[Vonsalza]

As 3 John was likely the last NT book written, wouldn’t that violate the prohibition on “adding to” and “taking away” that is present in Revelation if it was referring to the entire canon?

 

[Gorgias]

As 3 John was likely written after Revelation, wouldn’t that violate the prohibition on “adding to” and “taking away” that is present in Revelation if it was referring to the entire canon?

Interesting take. I would say that he’s primarily talking about changing the teachings of the books. If 3rd John doesn’t change scriptural revelation, then does it fall afoul of this prohibition?

 

[Vonsalza]

Beats me. 10 char

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Yeah agreed. We also have to remember that the (canon) of what we hold to be the Bible today wasn’t formed until much after the writings of revelation.

 

[BartholomewB]

Revelation 22 18/19 must surely mean something!

Do you think “this book”, in those two verses, refers to the Book of Revelation alone or the whole Bible?

http://newadvent.com/bible/rev022.htm

 

[BartholomewB]

• If the Book of Revelation is part of the Bible, then why is it reasonable to suggest that “adding or removing” from this one book is not allowed, but but doing the same to any other book of the Bible isn’t prohibited?

The Book of Revelation is part of the Bible now, but it wasn’t when John wrote it.

 

[AugustTherese]

As 3 John was likely the last NT book written, wouldn’t that violate the prohibition on “adding to” and “taking away” that is present in Revelation if it was referring to the entire canon?

You referring to the book of Revelation, or to public Revelation?

 

[Gorgias]

The Book of Revelation is part of the Bible now , but it wasn’t when John wrote it.

Was it divinely inspired when written, or only upon inclusion in the canon?

 

[BartholomewB]

That makes no difference.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

BartholomewB:

The Book of Revelation is part of the Bible now , but it wasn’t when John wrote it.

Was it divinely inspired when written, or only upon inclusion in the canon?

That makes no difference.

Well, then… neither does your observation. Right?

 

[BartholomewB]

Well, then… neither does your observation. Right?

Wrong. “This book”, at the moment John wrote those words, could only refer to a book then in existence as a book.

 

[Vonsalza]

The book, of course.

 

[AugustTherese]

Was it divinely inspired when written, or only upon inclusion in the canon?

When it was written. Were you playing DA?

 

[Kmon23]

Orthodox have bigger Bibles than Catholics. Why did the Catholic Church take out books?

• joke

 

[Gorgias]

Wrong. “This book”, at the moment John wrote those words, could only refer to a book then in existence as a book.

So, the Catholic Church teaches that the only message in the Bible is the intended message of the human author? It teaches that there are no messages which God intended in the text which the human author might not have intended?

Fascinating!

When it was written. Were you playing DA?

You know me well.

If there’s a divinely inspired message at the time of the writing, then that message could apply at that point, or any other point later in time. And therefore, we might reasonably interpret that passage to apply to the entire Bible, and not just the particular book.

 

[Hodos]

Revelation 22:18-19 is specific to John’s Revelation. Note that he says “this” book four times in the two lines of passage you are referencing.

 

[Hodos]

Luther relegated books to an appendix because they have information in them that disagreed what he thought was right. (Especially in regards to praying for the dead / forgiveness of sins) Later on, he used the post-Biblical Jewish canon for the OT as justification for rejecting certain books. (Never mind the fact that Jesus repeatedly quoted directly from the version of the OT used in the Catholic Canon, that didn’t matter to Luther.)

That is incorrect. Luther placed the apocryphal books in the same place that the Jews did in the Septuagint (in a separate section of apocryphal works - however, these works were not included in copies of the Hebrew temple scrolls) and reflected the debate within the Church regarding the canonicity of the Apocryphal works which raged right up to the Council of Trent. His treatment of the apocryphal works reflect the same treatment provided by Jerome and even Leo the Great. It is also noteworthy, as I said, that even in his day, men such as Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s interlocutor) agreed with Luther’s canon, believing that the apocryphal works were deuterocanonical. The argument frequently made with regard to the canonicity of the apocryphal works is an anachronistic one that ignores history.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I would say that he’s primarily talking about changing the teachings of the books

Some of the teachings of Leviticus have been changed, or abrogated altogether.

 

[Gorgias]

Some of the teachings of Leviticus have been changed, or abrogated altogether.

Apples and oranges.

First, the teachings in the books themselves haven’t been altered. Jesus didn’t walk around crossing out passages from the Torah.

Second, it is within Jesus’ authority to abrogate parts of the Mosaic law. That’s a different issue than the one we’re discussing.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

First, the teachings in the books themselves haven’t been altered. Jesus didn’t walk around crossing out passages from the Torah.

What you’re bringing up here is a technicality. I mean, the words are still there but the teaching is not.

Second, it is within Jesus’ authority to abrogate parts of the Mosaic law. That’s a different issue than the one we’re discussing.

And is it also within the authority of man (bishops) to abrogate parts of the Mosaic Law. Such as when Peter declared all foods to be clean, except of course for his Aunt Jenny’s mutton stew.