Why Do Catholics Say....

  • Thread starter Thread starter sandmountainsli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sandmountainsli

Guest
…That the 66 book Bible is “Incomplete”??
This is clearly not the case as the extra books which Romists use are included in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament BELONGS to the Jewish faith and they have never included any books other that the ones currently used by the Protestants. Ask any Jew which you know if the Apocrypha is part of the Hebrew scriptures and they will say “No”.
When the German, Luther did his trimming it was only to remove books which were not historically part of the Hebrew Canon.
WP
 
Do you realise that there are many quotes from the Deuterocanonical Books that were used in the NT? scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

If you exclude those books, you have an incomplete understanding of Scripture.

As for the Hebrew canon, the Jewish people lost their authority over Scripture, and their Covenant with God, when they rejected Jesus.

All Authority passed to the Church Jesus founded on Peter, the Church that wrote the Gospels and Epistles, the Church that gave us the Canon of Scripture by deciding which writings were inspired by God and which were not.

You have accepted the authority of the Church in its determination of the NT, yet you reject that Authority regarding the OT. Rather inconsistent, especially when the Church had included those 7 books for over 1000 years until a disgruntled priest Fr Luther Martin decided to lead a rebellion.
 
Aureole said:
The sixty-six book Bible is incomplete, it’s missing the Deuterocanon. Just to add a little something to what Eileen T said, the Church Fathers also quoted from the deuterocanon.
Click to expand...
You may quote from it all day long, “Wrestled over the body of Moses etc.” but the OT is the Jewish bible and is complete without those books. OT is Jewish scripture with significance to Christians and the NT is the writings of the early church. Simple as that.
WP
 
BTW, you must be unaware that using the term “Romists” when you mean “Catholics” is regarded as being insulting. The Church is the Catholic Church.

The term “Roman” or “Romish” Catholic first came into use by Protestant writers in the early 17th century who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic.
 
Eileen_T said:
BTW, you must be unaware that using the term “Romists” when you mean “Catholics” is regarded as being insulting. The Church is the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yes it is very insulting. Please do not call us such things.
 
sandmountainsli said:
You may quote from it all day long, “Wrestled over the body of Moses etc.” but the OT is the Jewish bible and is complete without those books. OT is Jewish scripture with significance to Christians and the NT is the writings of the early church. Simple as that.
WP
Click to expand...
The canon of Scripture that modern Jews use is that set by the (Jewish) council of Jamnia in about 100 AD. Up until that time, the Jews used the Alexandrian version, which included the deutercanonical books. The council of Jamnia rejected books that were written in Greek. The Alexandrian scripture is what was in use during Jesus’ time and that is why he references it in the NT. What’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for the Catholic Church but wasn’t good enough for Luther.

Interestingly enough, parts of several of those books which were thought to exist only in Greek turned up as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew.
 
sandmountainsli said:
You may quote from it all day long, “Wrestled over the body of Moses etc.” but the OT is the Jewish bible and is complete without those books. OT is Jewish scripture with significance to Christians and the NT is the writings of the early church. Simple as that.
WP
Click to expand...
The Jewish canon of the OT was established at the Council of Javneh (Jamnia) around AD90, 60 years after the Church had been teaching using the Septuagint.

Even today, Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint for their Canon of OT Scripture.

So, although you claim the OT is the property of the Jewish people, they didn’t establish it until after Authority had gone from them.

If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church, it’s good enough for me.
 
Eileen_T said:
BTW, you must be unaware that using the term “Romists” when you mean “Catholics” is regarded as being insulting. The Church is the Catholic Church.

The term “Roman” or “Romish” Catholic first came into use by Protestant writers in the early 17th century who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic.
Click to expand...
Apologies:) I was unaware that it was a slur.
Alot like calling a Church of Christ member a “Campbellite” I assume?
WP
 
Campbellite? You have lost me.

The Council of Javneh which rejected the Septuagint also rejected the NT writings. Shows how inspired by God they were!
 
Eileen_T said:
Campbellite? You have lost me.

!
Click to expand...
If you call a COC member a Campbellite they will condemn you to the bowels of Hell! I know because I did it once by accident. Doesn’t bother me if someone calls me a Knox-Wesleyan:D
WP
 
Oh,
On another note I would like to say that all are welcome to check out the ScotWatch Religion board at anytime if they so choose.
The subject matter is a bit different than here so I hope not to be accused of trying to “steal” posters (I am not, just being neighbourly)
sandmountain.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=religion
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
You may quote from it all day long, “Wrestled over the body of Moses etc.” but the OT is the Jewish bible and is complete without those books. OT is Jewish scripture with significance to Christians and the NT is the writings of the early church. Simple as that.
WP
Click to expand...
The New Testament quotes from the deuterocanonical books. This is shown in the first link I provided. That alone should be of some value.

Further, why should we accept the canon of the Jews? The authority to canonize Scripture passed from the Jews to the Apostles. The canon of the Old Testament was still in dispute among the Jews during the life of our Saviour.

If the Church doesn’t have the authority to canonize those books that the Jewish people reject, why is the New Testament considered canon? Why not add the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter and Paul, the Gospel of Nicodemus? Why not take out the Gospel of St. John, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Revelation?
 
Here’s a test. Find a listing from any early Church council of the canon of scripture that includes the 66 books in the Protestant bible but does not include the deuterocanonicals.

I can save you some time. You won’t find such a canon. The Church never, ever recognized the 66 books while rejecting the deuterocanonicals. What do you say to that?
 
VociMike said:
Here’s a test. Find a listing from any early Church council of the canon of scripture that includes the 66 books in the Protestant bible but does not include the deuterocanonicals.

I can save you some time. You won’t find such a canon. The Church never, ever recognized the 66 books while rejecting the deuterocanonicals. What do you say to that?
Click to expand...
I say for the first fifteen hundred years or so the church was in error concerning the Jewish scriptures;) The NT, the church had all rights to set the canon for the OT is a different story.
WP
 
Eileen_T said:
The Jewish canon of the OT was established at the Council of Javneh (Jamnia) around AD90, 60 years after the Church had been teaching using the Septuagint.

Even today, Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint for their Canon of OT Scripture.
Click to expand...
We do?
 
Canonization of the Tanakh occurred between 200 BCE and 200CE. The Torah itself was in its present form from a much earlier time – Jewish tradition saying about 1300 BCE. When you speak about the canonization occurring around 90 CE, you’re generally talking about the Ketuvim (psalms, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, etc.). Prophets and Torah had already been set down in canon.

Including certain books, like the Song of Songs, (a book that kept plenty a student awake at nights, I’m sure), was being debated in the Talmud. So we can conclude that it was a rather late addition to the Canon.

The bottom line is that Judaism rocks. and our 24 books are just a springboard, much as your bible is a springboard for the Church.
 
sandmountainsli said:
I say for the first fifteen hundred years or so the church was in error concerning the Jewish scriptures;) The NT, the church had all rights to set the canon for the OT is a different story.
WP
Click to expand...
So even the apostles who learned at the feet of Christ had it wrong? Wow!
 
Look at it this way:

The same Holy Spirit that guided the Church to determine the 27 books of the NT out of some 110 books that were in question at this time, just abandoned the same council when it closed the OT Canon?

Don’t forget - “All Scripture is profitable for teaching…”. The OT books are not the property of just the Jews. They are just as important to Christians as they are to Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top