Why did protestants delete books of the bible?

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

There are so many levels you err, I hardly know where to begin.

1. I NEVER said “it” (ecclesiastical hierarchy) can be found in the Bible! YOU EVEN QUOTED ME! I said “Many Protestants DO find the concept of hierarchy in the Bible.”
2. NO ONE (as far as I can tell) has ever said the term “church” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy exclusively, as you apparently think we say.
3. Catholics believe “the Faithful” (which comprises the Church) is made up of the Pope, Bishops in Union with the Pope, and All religious (monks, nuns, etc.) as well as the Laity. IOW, the Church, in the eyes of Catholics, IS the Faithful. The hierarchy alone is not the Church.
4. Catholics also believe that ALL BAPTIZED Christians are also members of the Body of Christ, (another understanding of Church) which includes Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians etc. (But I’m pretty sure your little splinter group does not believe in Baptismal regeneration so they would not be included.) They are, however, VERY imperfectly and however slightly, an ecclesial entity and possess a little bit of Truth.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

And yet, you’re talking about conditional statements in Koine Greek. So, my assertion holds: even in first-class conditionals, it doesn’t have the force of “since”; rather, it means “let’s assume this may be true, for the sake of the argument.”

And by the way, you didn’t say “in that verse”; perhaps you meant it, but let me refresh your memory about your claim:

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

See?

Satan was tempting Jesus, “since you are the Son of God

With all due respect, you misunderstand Koine Greek conditional statements (or have been taught poorly). I might recommend you read Wallace’s excellent “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”.

 

[JohnR77]

See new tangent thread

The Proof that the Catholic Church did Not Sell Indulgences Sacred Scripture

On another thread about the Canon it was stated Did the Catholic Church Sell Indulgences ? No And here below is not just the claim but the proof it did not do so. Read the text and the Proofs that follow the short introductory video by Father Mike Schmitz . . John

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Church includes an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

That was my point, because the NT does not describe the church as being an ecclesiastical hierarchy…only the other two Biblical meanings.

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.

What I was referring to was the use of the word “church” in the NT. When the word is used in the NT, it’s never used to describe a hierarchy. And when the NT refers to elder-bishops (one single office) & deacons in a local church, this is not the same as a Catholic hierarchy with multiple hierarchical layers (pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, priest, etc). This is foreign to the NT meaning of the word & definition of “church.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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?

Luke goes out of his way to mention the Pharisees were “lovers of money,” & states that they were listening to everything Jesus was saying. Jesus then goes on to describe a parable of a “rich man” & his 5 brothers who represent the “money loving” Pharisees. At the end of the parable, “Abraham” states that “They” (referring to the Pharisees) “have” (Greek: have possession of) “Moses & the Prophets” (the OT canon). Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers stated that Pharisees had the same books that are in the Protestant OTs today. So, by Jesus saying “They have Moses & the Prophets,” He was affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees, which contained the exact same books as in Protestant OTs.

But Christ never said He would make a point of quoting from every book of the Old Testament canon.

He didn’t need to. The terms “the Law & the Prophets” or “Moses & the Prophets” were metonyms to describe the OT canon. When He used those terms, Jesus was describing the OT canon as a whole.

RaisedCatholic:

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

Which proves nothing either way.

It rejects the common, false assumption that just because Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, this means He also rejected their canon too. He didn’t.

 

[Zaccheus]

And when the NT refers to elder-bishops (one single office) & deacons in a local church, this is not the same as a Catholic hierarchy with multiple hierarchical layers (pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, priest, etc)

The number of layers of the hierarchy is not the issue. There were fewer layers then because there were fewer Christians and less need for organization. Apostle to district bishop/elder/term of your choice to local priest/deacon/whatever they were called, is enough to show there was a structure in which authority started at the top and descended to the laity.

I’m not sure what you mean by your repeated reference to the word ‘church’.

 

[Zaccheus]

So, by Jesus saying “They have Moses & the Prophets,” He was affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees,

Christ (through Abraham) was telling the rich man his brothers had the truth already. He did not say “They have the scribes and the Pharisees: let them listen to them.”
In no way was Abraham telling us how many books should be in the canon, nor was he saying the Pharisees were right about anything.
The parable was about mercy to the poor, and about the evil of serving Mammon.

 

[steph03]

The actual reason is that the Protestants chose to accept the Jewish Canon of Scriptures. Judaism doesn’t have the 7 books either. But of course they came to that conclusion after Christ …

 

[RaisedCatholic]

There were fewer layers then because there were fewer Christians and less need for organization.

Again, according to the New Testament epistles, and elder and a bishop were the exact same office. It had nothing to do with there being few were Christians back then. The New Testament is explicit that they were the same office. It didn’t get split until the early second century.

I’m not sure what you mean by your repeated reference to the word ‘church’.

Like I said in previous posts, when the word church or churches is used in the New Testament, it either refers to local assemblies of believers, such as the churches in the Revelation chapters 2 and 3, or it’s simply refers to every believer who God calls out from the world, not just the clergy in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This latter understanding develop later in church history. In order to demonstrate these two former definitions of the word church, if you go to an online lexicon or concordance and type in the word church, and you examine every use of it, you’ll see that the New Testament limits that word to only these two former meanings, not the latter.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Christ (through Abraham) was telling the rich man his brothers had the truth already. He did not say “They have the scribes and the Pharisees: let them listen to them.”
In no way was Abraham telling us how many books should be in the canon, nor was he saying the Pharisees were right about anything.

This was a parable that Jesus was telling, not an actual event. So it wasn’t actually Abraham who is doing the talking. For one Abraham lived before any of the old testament writings were penned. And when a person dies they don’t have fingers or tongues, because their spirits not their body went to the realm of the dead in the Old Testament age. So Jesus is just using these people as part of the parable. So when Jesus, not really Abraham, says “they”, the “they” is in reference to the money loving Pharisees back in verse 14 who were listening to everything Jesus was saying. In other words, the rich man and his five brothers are representative of these money loving Pharisees, and Jesus is saying that they, meaning the Pharisees, have possession of the Old Testament Scriptures. Any Greek the word have means to have possession of something entirely.

 

[ThomasMT]

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.

As long as you are open to using “Catholic Answers” as a common, baseline source…
"
Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.
" - Jason Avert

 

[LovelyLadybug]

They are not necessary. To be born again and operate in the ministry that saint Paul describes

@ThomasMT I did not say this, so I don’t know why this is being shown under my name. Those Bible Books are necessary, so I’m a little confused, why that reply has my name attached to it.

 

[catholic03]

Luther decided he didn’t think the deuterocanon supported his interpretation of Christianity. So he had them removed.

We must be clear. Catholics don’t have seven extra books. Protestants have seven missing books.

 

[Rasoleil]

73 were too many to read, so they created Bible Light.

 

[ThomasMT]

Not sure how thay happened, I scrolled up to find the original but it’s not there. Maybe flagged? I deleted. Sorry.

 

[MarkRome]

I would simply say that the reason the Church has the seven books is because they are inspired. New Testament quotes from the Septuagint are a nice aside but aren’t the reason why the Church has the books in the Bible.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s one of the reasons, but also because the Church was growing and more people understood Greek than Hebrew.

 

[MarkRome]

And not all of the books contained in the Septuagint are in the Catholic Bible.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.

Agreed, which is not an argument Protestants make for the reasons you stated.

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35:

There are also dozens of allusions - and even direct quotes - to non-deuterocanonical books, like 1 Enoch, 3 & 4 Maccabees, etc. - in the NT. So, if we were to allow 2 Maccabees, wouldn’t we have to include these books & others as well?

 

[ThomasMT]

Good question. I’m confident that the Church has a good answer, I wish I had the time to look for it.