Why did protestants delete books of the bible?

[Heavenward]

clapclapclap

OK you got me there, didn’t realize devil’s advocating can be mentally taxing.

In fact it seems, from all of my reading, it is only the Protestants who care so much about which books should be considered as part of the Bible, and this is because some books seem to contradict their teachings. Heck many are familiar with the story that Martin Luther wanted to chuck out the Epistle of St James from the Bible because it contradicts what he was teaching.

(Too bad he didn’t, it would have exposed the illigitamacy of his movement.)

On the other hand, even some of the autocephalous churches of Eastern Orthodoxy have different books of the Old Testament. And when one reads the proclamation of the Council of Trent regarding the Biblical Canon (here’s a link of the translated text), one can note that the wording does not imply that there are no other inspired texts that can be added to the canon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Where did your Lord establish His Church on anything written? Is that what you really think?

That is a man-made novelty, if you are unaware.

Many Christians believe Jesus built His Church on the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as opposed to Peter himself. They believe this because the purpose of Jesus giving Peter the keys was so that he could “bind & loose” what had already been bound & loosed in Heaven, which this “binding & loosing” was then extended to the rest of the church in Matthew 18:18, which would require them to have the keys as well. Otherwise, they would not be able to bind & loose, since that is the purpose of the keys.

But I never implied that Jesus built His church on the Scriptures, just that Protestants affirm the Scriptures of the Pharisees, because our Lord affirmed their Scriptures in Luke 16.

BTW, Jesus did command the apostle John to “WRITE” down in a book, referring to the book of Revelation, everything he saw, was seeing, and what going to happen in the future.

(Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S. J.) He teaches that 300 of the 360 OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint.

And Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers (you know, the forum you are on right now), wrote in one place it was closer to 2/3, and in another about 80%. Regardless, even “if” it’s 91%:

1. none of these quotes are from the books from the Deuterocanon, only from the books of the Hebrew Bible;
2. Fr. Pacwa may be including allusions, as opposed to only direct quotes, from the Septuagint; and
3. Why didn’t the NT writers quote 100% from the Septuagint if they believed it was just as inspired as the original? Why would the apostles, like Matthew & John, deviate from the Septuagint & use their own Greek translations of the OT, which was actually more faithful to the original OT Hebrew text?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Many Protestants DO find the concept of heirarchy in the Bible. It is just your little splinter group that has trouble.

Okay, then can you demonstrate - from Scripture - even a single time where the word “church” or “churches” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy, as opposed to either a local church or every believer that makes up the church, not just he clergy?

Are you quoting Martin Luther, or is this another little idea your splinter group came up with? If it is the former, please provide quote, if the latter, never mind.

Neither, because Luther nor my “splinter group” did not write Luke 16:14,29…the evangelist Luke did.

 

[po18guy]

Many Christians are wrong.

On that day, many will cry “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?”

And our Lord replied…(not a good ending for them)

Being correct matters… in matters of faith and morals.

Scripture was written, NOT as a sole rule of faith, but oftentimes to those who doubt. They had to see it in print before they would believe. Theophilus being one potential example. The written evidence is that Luke wrote his Gospel solely that Theophilus would read it and no longer doubt. What did our Lord have to say about doubt?

Indeed, it was not written for you and I, but thanks to the Church, we have it today.

To paraphrase: “Blessed are those who have not read, and have believed.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And our Lord replied…(not a good ending for them)

Being correct matters… in matters of faith and morals.

Amen! Couldn’t agree more!

 

[po18guy]

The devil doubted.

“If you are son of God…”

Since the devil doubted and would not take our Lord at His word, Jesus had to offer written proof: “It is written…”

Doubt and devil both begin with “D”

Anyway, take the advice of 1.2 billion and become childlike: return to the faith of your youth.

I’m out, as I have precious little time left and little interest in disputation, which also begins with a D.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The devil doubted.

“ If you are son of God…”

In Greek, the meaning of “if” means “since.” It’s not that the devil was doubting who Jesus was, but that he was tempting Him. And he tempted Him with Scripture by saying “It is written,” but did it in a way that he tried to manipulate Scripture by not citing the entire verse, which Jesus cited it in context.

Doubt and devil both begin with “D”

And? So does Deuterocanon.

Anyway, take the advice of 1.2 billion and become childlike: return to the faith of your youth.

Majority does not always equate with truth. By 2050, there will be more Muslims than Catholics. Are you planning on converting to Catholicism then, since there will be more Muslims? Are you going to take your own “advice”?

I’m out, as I have precious little time left and little interest in disputation, which also begins with a D.

Okay. No one is stopping you or preventing you from not replying. That is entirely up to you. Have a pleasant day.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Okay, then can you demonstrate - from Scripture - even a single time where the word “church” or “churches” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy, as opposed to either a local church or every believer that makes up the church, not just he clergy?

Why would I want to do that? Hasn’t your “sola Scriptura” principle already proved to you abundantly that anything can be proved from Scripture by anyone that prefers to see that interpretation? You look for opposing Scriptural arguments solely for the purpose of destroying them. Is this “the Church” that Christ founded? One where everyone bickers about their own interpretation? Or did Christ leave us an actual, physical, visible, authoritative congregation, to preserve His Truth? The one we see in the New Testament, and in the Acts of the Apostles especially? The one we see witnessed to by the Apostolical, Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and their successors? You would rather turn a deaf ear to the actual, historical testimony of the early Christians, because 2000 years later you figured everything out without them and in contradiction to them?

 

[Maximian]

Did anyone see the old film “The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean?”

There’s a scene when the law is pointed out to him in his own legal textbook.

“That’s a bad law!” he says, and rips out the page.

 

[adf417]

Okay, then can you demonstrate - from Scripture - even a single time where the word “church” or “churches” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy, as opposed to either a local church or every believer that makes up the church, not just he clergy?

I would submit “the letters to the seven churches” in Revelations should answer this. The letters are written from one authority to multiple churches. I submit that this example should show that any ecclesial body not receiving and accepting correction from an outside authority has removed themselves from the “body of Christ”.

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

In Greek, the meaning of “if” means “since.”

This is untrue. (Nevertheless, I understand that some have preached that this is the case – they’re mistaken.)

We could get into a detailed discussion of conditional statements in Koine Greek, but let’s just look at one simple counter-example:

“[Jesus said,] if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own people drive them out?” (Mt 12:27)

Jesus is clearly not saying “Since I drive out demons by Beelzebul…”

Even if you want to make the case that this is a first-class conditional, then the best you can assert is that, in the context of the quotation, the devil is assuming as true for the sake of the argument he’s making.

 

[johnnykins]

Since that quote refers exclusively to the OT, if you accept any of the NT you are in breach.

Also, the LXX was the definitive Greek translation used by the Evangelists - so you might want to tread lightly there, too.

The fact of the matter is, at the time of Christ, there was no definitive canon for the Tenakh. The Masoretes’ limitation of the Tenakh to 66 books almost certainly had as one purpose to exclude what we now call the NT.

So…be careful

 

[RaisedCatholic]

No, because you proclaimed in your previous comment:

AmbroseSJ:

Many Protestants DO find the concept of heirarchy in the Bible.

Since you are making the claim it can be found in the Bible, all I am asking is for you to show me “where” in the Bible, the term “church” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy, as opposed to simply local assemblies of believers & every believer who is part of the “universal” church, and not just the hierarchy.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

“[Jesus said,] if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own people drive them out?” (Mt 12:27)

Jesus is clearly not saying “Since I drive out demons by Beelzebul…”

When I said “if” means “since” in that verse, I wasn’t saying that’s how the word is used universally in every single verse the word is used in the NT. Just like in English, Koine Greek has numerous meanings for a word. The context of the passage determines its use. When Satan said, “if you are the Son of God,” he wasn’t questioning Who Jesus was. He knew Who Jesus was, because he knew Jesus when God created the heavens & the earth. Satan was tempting Jesus, “since you are the Son of God, then make this & this happen,” & tried to tempt Him by twisting Scripture.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The letters are written from one authority to multiple churches.

Yes, and that “Authority” was from Christ, who commanded John to write it to the seven churches. But Christ, not John, was that authority.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

I’m not sure. I was a protestant for a fraction of my life, and when I first started reading the Wisdom, I was fascinated on how much goodness that book contains.

Also, my mother thinks Tobias is a fabulous book. She’s a convert, too.

I need to dive into the 1/2 Maccabees more.

 

[Aulef]

Unfortunately yes, it is

 

[Zaccheus]

The reason Protestants only accept the 39 books (which exclude the deuteros) is because they believe Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees in Luke 16:14,29, which Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers stated contained the same books that are in Protestant OTs today.

…? …

Luke 16: 14. The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.

Luke 16: 29.But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’

How does either of these verses affirm the canon of the Pharisees? One verse tell us don’t be lovers of money. The other is taken from the parable in which Jesus (by quoting Abraham) tells people to listen to Moses and the Prophets-- the authorities the Pharisees respected. At no point in that parable does Jesus list or number the books.

Further Jesus was commenting on the plea of the rich man, that Lazarus be sent back to speak personally to his brothers. He had Abraham say that those who wouldn’t listen to the sources they already had wouldn’t listen to Lazarus.

Of note here is that about 90% of the OT quotations in the NT have their origins in the Septuagint collection. This includes statements made by our Lord.

The 90% figure is grossly exaggerated. Jimmy Akin has stated it is closer to about 2/3. And when you look at the quotes from the Septuagint it cites, all of them are from the books within the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, but not any of the deuteros (see my reply in #24 above).

But Christ never said He would make a point of quoting from every book of the Old Testament canon. He quoted as He had need to teach and make points. Not to define the canon.

hile Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their unbelief, He never rebuked them for their canon.

Which proves nothing either way.

and Jesus affirmed the canon of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14,29)

As I have already asked: how does either of these verses ‘affirm the canon of the Pharisees’?

When Jesus said “they have Moses & the Prophets,” this means they “have possession” of the OT canon, which means they should have been able to know alone from Scripture how to avoid the torments of Hades, as well as know Who Jesus was.

Yes. But Jesus did not have Abraham list and enumerate the books. That was not the point.

But they had added so many of their man-made “traditions”

But:

1. Nowhere does Jesus say that those traditions were attempts to define the canon of Scripture.
2. He was rebuking them for ignoring the meaning of Scripture, not accusing them of adding to the canon.
3. Nor did He ever say anything to the effect of “And these books which I now name, are not really part of Scripture.”

 

[adf417]

adf417:

The letters are written from one authority to multiple churches.

Yes, and that “Authority” was from Christ, who commanded John to write it to the seven churches. But Christ, not John, was that authority.

Of coarse! No one has ever suggested that ultimate authority has ever come for anyone but Christ. But that was not your question.

Do you not see the point that John [the human authority] is writing these letters to multiple churches? Does that not demonstrate what you were asking an ecclesiastical hierarchy?

Are you suggesting God can use John to write letters authoritatively to all churches that needed correction but never again?

Peace!!!

 

[Zaccheus]

This is because of how Protestants understand the concept of the “church” different from Catholics. For many Catholics, “the Church” is an ecclesiastical hierarchy with the Pope & the Magisterium at the top, followed by Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, etc. For Protestants, the word “church” in the NT means “assembly,” & it is only used to describe either a local assembly of believers, like the 7 “churches” of Revelation, or it refers to all genuine believers in Christ collectively, not just the clergy at the top of a hierarchy. IOW, Protestants don’t believe the church is a hierarchy, because they can’t find this concept of the church in Scripture.

No. The Church includes an ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ordinary layman is still part of the Church. I as a Catholic am as much part of the Church as my priest and my bishop. I just don’t have the authority or duties of the priest and bishop. The laity have a different role.

IOW, Protestants don’t believe the church is a hierarchy, because they can’t find this concept of the church in Scripture.

1 Timothy:
Paul instructs Timothy. Timothy clearly has some local authority and answers to Paul. Among other things Timothy is told
“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.”
Does that not imply that Timothy is a man of authority, able to “admit charges against elders”?

Titus: chapter 1. " This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,d and his children are believerse and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer,f as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in soundg doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it."

Paul gives orders to Titus. Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders to every town. Paul uses the same description of what an elder should be like that he used when writing to Timothy.
Paul used his authority to appoint others to positions of authority, telling them to appoint still others.

This is a hierarchy.