When did Protestants first say Catholics added 7 books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paarsurrey said:
Hi
I think that the books added/taken out, as I am given to understand by someone here, are from the OTBible. The OTBible was in the Book form, the Jews would witness it; is there a Jew here to throw light on this issue?
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
Click to expand...
You really don’t get it. A Jew does not recognise the New Testament at all. The Book of Revelations is the last book of the New Testament and John’s words about not adding or taking away are exclusivley directed at Revelations which he wrote!!
 
thistle said:
You really don’t get it. A Jew does not recognise the New Testament at all. The Book of Revelations is the last book of the New Testament and John’s words about not adding or taking away are exclusivley directed at Revelations which he wrote!!
Click to expand...
Hi
Kindly mention where I made the mistake. First time I was confronted with this issue was when two JWs came to visit me at my home. They opened the last page of the Bible ( Protestant Urdu NTBible) and showed it to me and said there cannot be any addition or substraction of anything from the Bible as it has a serious warning in this regard and showed me the last paragraphs of Revelation in support of their calim. I had a Urdu Catholic Version with me, I brought it and I said let us verify it. I opened the lists of Books in both the versions, they were also checking it with me. To their astonishment there were six books missing in the Protestant Bible.
So if the warning was for the whole Bible as they claimed, then the warning was valid for both the denominations.
If it was not for the whole Bible, then there should be some separate strong worded warnings for all the Books of the OTBible and the NTBible. There is none so emphatic, at least I am not aware as yet.
The third possibility would be that John knew what the people had done to other books and he was afraid that the same would be done to his book and therefore he added that warning. In that case perhaps this is a witnessing of John of the Revelations that the books of the Bilbe were not secure and protected, if I understand it correctly.
You kinldly explore other possibilities.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
 
I want to clarify some facts. Martin Luther and the early Reformers did not remove the 7 Deutrocanonical Books. They were put in the Appendix. It was not until the death of Martin Luther, we start seeing copies of their Bible without the 7 Deutrocanonical Books.

The main reason why they were slowly taken out from their translation was because they contradict many of the Protestant theology and doctrines. It didn’t bear any good fruit.

I hope this helps…I recommend a book called Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta.

handsonapologetics.com/index.html
 
deb1 said:
i am pretty certain that martin luther only put the books in the back of his bible. he didn’t remove them entirely.
Click to expand...
At the beginning he did… but after he had a debate with a Catholic apologist and this Catholic apologist (John Eck) used 2 Maccabees as PROOF of the purgatory, Luther replied… that BOOK is not canonical… right after that, he proceeded to remove all those books altoghether from his bible.

Many blessings,

E.C.
 
El_camino said:
At the beginning he did… but after he had a debate with a Catholic apologist and this Catholic apologist (John Eck) used 2 Maccabees as PROOF of the purgatory, Luther replied… that BOOK is not canonical… right after that, he proceeded to remove all those books altoghether from his bible.

Many blessings,

E.C.
Click to expand...
But does 2 Maccabees really support Catholic doctrine. Yes it shows prayer for the dead but the dead being prayed for were idolaters, wearing pagan symbols. That would have been a grave sin and there would have been no benefit of praying if they died guilty of a grave sin.
 
actually, an interesting point to bring up to a protestant about that is that the reformers (namely Luther) used books in the “apocrypha” in his writings, and never distinguished them from the rest of scripture, and even used passages from the “apocrypha” in his arguements against the Church
 
SyCarl said:
But does 2 Maccabees really support Catholic doctrine. Yes it shows prayer for the dead but the dead being prayed for were idolaters, wearing pagan symbols. That would have been a grave sin and there would have been no benefit of praying if they died guilty of a grave sin.
Click to expand...
Now, that would be a different topic, now… wouldn’t it?

But here’s the answer any way…
SyCarl said:
But does 2 Maccabees really support Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes
40.png
sycarl:
Yes it shows prayer for the dead but the dead being prayed for were idolaters, wearing pagan symbols. That would have been a grave sin and there would have been no benefit of praying if they died guilty of a grave sin.
Click to expand...
Catholic and Jewish Theology (as shown clearly in 2 Maccabees) does not presuposse that because some died in sin as seen from OUR EYES with all our human limitations, that person would go to HELL ipso facto, as you are not GOD to know all the different things that went through those people’s head before they die. Yes, it is possible that they went to Hell, but again this is just a possibility, not something that you can assure beyond the possibilty of doubt. Becuase of that we still pray for the dead, which is exactly what they did in 2 Maccabees and as 2 Maccabees said: “It is a very noble thing to do”

Many blessings,

E.C.
 
SyCarl said:
But does 2 Maccabees really support Catholic doctrine. Yes it shows prayer for the dead but the dead being prayed for were idolaters, wearing pagan symbols. That would have been a grave sin and there would have been no benefit of praying if they died guilty of a grave sin.
Click to expand...
Grave matter, maybe… A grave SIN only if it is done intentionally, whilst knowing it is wrong. God judges based on what is in somebody’s heart, and these people were no exception.
 
El_camino said:
Catholic and Jewish Theology (as shown clearly in 2 Maccabees) does not presuposse that because some died in sin as seen from OUR EYES with all our human limitations, that person would go to HELL ipso facto, as you are not GOD to know all the different things that went through those people’s head before they die. Yes, it is possible that they went to Hell, but again this is just a possibility, not something that you can assure beyond the possibilty of doubt. Becuase of that we still pray for the dead, which is exactly what they did in 2 Maccabees and as 2 Maccabees said: “It is a very noble thing to do”
Click to expand...
Wow you said kind of the same thing I did… 😃
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi
Kindly mention where I made the mistake. First time I was confronted with this issue was when two JWs came to visit me at my home. They opened the last page of the Bible ( Protestant Urdu NTBible) and showed it to me and said there cannot be any addition or substraction of anything from the Bible as it has a serious warning in this regard and showed me the last paragraphs of Revelation in support of their calim. I had a Urdu Catholic Version with me, I brought it and I said let us verify it. I opened the lists of Books in both the versions, they were also checking it with me. To their astonishment there were six books missing in the Protestant Bible.
So if the warning was for the whole Bible as they claimed, then the warning was valid for both the denominations.
If it was not for the whole Bible, then there should be some separate strong worded warnings for all the Books of the OTBible and the NTBible. There is none so emphatic, at least I am not aware as yet.
The third possibility would be that John knew what the people had done to other books and he was afraid that the same would be done to his book and therefore he added that warning. In that case perhaps this is a witnessing of John of the Revelations that the books of the Bilbe were not secure and protected, if I understand it correctly.
You kinldly explore other possibilities.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
Click to expand...
One of your mistakes is listening to Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are not Christians. Like you they follow a false religion.
 
paarsurrey said:
So if the warning was for the whole Bible as they claimed, then the warning was valid for both the denominations.
Click to expand...
Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses view Christianity very differently.

Traditional Muslims and the Nation of Islam view Islam very differently.

If someone is of the “Nation of Islam” and tells me that Allah came in the person of W.D. Fard Muhammad, can I trust that person’s interpretation as an accurate representation of a valid claim for both groups of professing Muslims?
 
El_camino said:
MARTIN LUTHER was the first Protestant to claim this.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about that…do you have a reference? I understand him not so much thinking Catholics “added” them, because he knew those books had been included from the beginning…he just didn’t think they were Scriptural. Hopefully I’ll know more after I read Gary Michuta’s new book about Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger!
 
deb1 said:
i have heard, and i don’t know if this is true, that the books were removed when the protestants started doing more mission work in the 1800’s.what i heard was that they wanted a less expensive book to print so they could get them out in bulk to the mission field.

so, perhaps around the 1800’s is when the first claim was made.before that it would be sensless for them to have claimed that catholics added books that they had in their bibles also.
Click to expand...
Does anyone else know about this claim? It is the closest I see to an answer so far.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Does anyone else know about this claim? It is the closest I see to an answer so far.
Click to expand...
The Protestants viewed them as “useful for learning”, but not inspired. This echoed the Jews who had taken them out of what was the “traditional Scriptures” - the Septuagint. On the Catholic side, St. Jerome didn’t feel they “measured up” to Scripture standards, but he acquiesced to Papal authority. This is why they are called “Deutero-Canonical” - “Deutero” means 2nd. I think the Reformers used St. Jerome’s arguments to bolster their claim, the strongest argument being that they were never written in Hebrew. This has proven to be at least partially false, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Incidentally, although the Catholic canon comes closer to mirroring the Septuagint index, there are some books in the Septuagint that are not found in the Catholic Canon (3rd and 4th Esdras and 3rd and 4th Maccabees comes to mind, but I could be wrong).
 
I think I need to rephrase my question. I am not asking when Protestants cast the 7 books out of full Scripture status, whether all together or by way of an “apocrypha.” That was with Luther.

Modern anti-Catholics like this author who write: “These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent” are the ones who I am addressing. This common modern error had to start sometime between when Protestants cast these books out of the appendix and now.

**What I am looking to be answered is WHEN occurred the first claim that “Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent.” ** Luther did not assert this to my knowledge, it would have been impossible for him to do so since the Catholic Bible prior to Trent contained them, and he would have known this first-hand. As well, he only lived up until the start of the first session of the Council.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Does anyone else know about this claim? It is the closest I see to an answer so far.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve read it here several times and maybe somewhere else. Try New Advent. I’d heard it was the “Bible Societies” that sprung up and printed them for mission work.
 
This is just my opinion, but I think the phrase that catholics “added” books is just the positive reverse of what is true, that the protestants removed them. They’re moving the blame to the “other”, so that they themselves don’t have to explain it. I don’t think you’ll be able to tie down a specific group or time frame when it started, except that it was most likely in the industrial revolution when mass production was much easier, and Bibles were becoming more common the average person’s home.

:twocents:
 
deb1 said:
but how do you resolve something peaceably if you don’t know what the origin of the problem is?
I, too, am curious when protestants started claiming that catholics added books to the bible.
Click to expand...
Hi
It is not a question of books only, which range from 6 to 13, then there are chapters missing, then there passages missing, then there are verses missing and of course there are many verses being translated differently by different Christian denominations. A very lengthy list indeed. Then there are proplems arising because the scriptures are not in the original language they were revealed.It is a complex problem not observed by the ordinary reader. And it is no more a mystery.I respect your religion, but that is my experience.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top