Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[RaisedCatholic]

Name one NT writer, that was NOT already in the Church, already in place ?

The NT writers were either apostles (like St. Peter & St. Paul) or a close contemporary of them (like St. Mark & St. Luke). They weren’t later non-apostolic writers, like Irenaeus. They simply wrote down what they witnessed & were taught by Jesus, including the church being the pillar of the church. And their miracles validated not only what they said, but also what they wrote down (or what others wrote down, like St. Paul validating St. Luke’s writings by calling them “Scripture” which St. Paul states Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed).

It is because of this apostolic authorship from the first century that we can trust the 27-book NT canon, which was inspired the moment it was penned in the first century, not because later Catholics “canonized” them later. All that the writers did was write down what they were teaching (these SAME “traditions either by letter OR by word”). The fact they were already in the church, isn’t the point, since our faith that the church is the pillar & shield of the truth isn’t based on THEM, but on the self-authoritative inspired Scriptures they wrote. This is why even St. Peter wrote it wasn’t because of his eye-witness if the Transfiguration of Jesus that we should believe him, because of the SCRIPTURES: “we have the prophetic word made MORE SURE” (2 Peter 1:19). This is when he goes on to state that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of “one’s” own interpretation but men moved by the Holy Spirit.

So, we MUST begin with the canon of Scripture (“the prophetic word made MORE SURE”) BEFORE we can be certain that the church really is the “pillar & shield of the truth.” Otherwise, we are simply “believing” in a particular religious entity to what the NT canon is, which is subjective, rather than Jesus & His Word, which states the OLD Testament canon is that of the Pharisees & later Protestants.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

As for Jews of the day, Pharisee or not,

Jesus gave the following order

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

Seems Jesus thought those Pharisees et al, YOU want to hang onto sooooo tightly for your defense , were lost THEN, …and one has to ask, what has changed, down to today?

In context, Jesus was talking about Israel (including the Pharisees) being “lost” in their false beliefs based on their extra-biblical “traditions,” which He corrected them WITH Scripture (“Have you not read?” / “It is written” / “the Scriptures say” etc). He was not saying anything about their OT canon being incomplete being part of the being “lost,” just their misapplication & additional traditions to it. Contrast this with St. Philip who recognized Jesus by “Moses in the Law & the Prophets” (St. John 1:45). Notice, nothing about the “traditions” of the Pharisees, but SCRIPTURE ALONE. This is the same phrase Jesus used when He affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-16, 29).

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RC you may find this interesting - this “self-authoritativeness” you profess, or the lack of it, is probably the most profess reason for joining the Catholic Church i hear every year at the beginning of RCIA class. Granted our small church does not have big classes but this reason for joining is quite overwhelming.

Peace!!!

Yet, even though we believe in the same 27-book NT canon, we disagree on the OT canon books. So, since we agree on the same NT canon, then what it says about the OT canon must be true? Yes? Then if we believe the words of Jesus in the 27-book NT canon, then we must also believe what He reveals about the OT canon. Yes? In Luke 16, Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees, which according to Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers is the exact same as Protestants today. That, along for other reasons, I am no longer espouse to the faith of my upbringing. As far as my “denomination,” let’s just say I am a “Reformed Catholic.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Again, Catholics do not use the bible to “discover” doctrine. That would be your paradigm. We use it to back it up. Gods word is the living word. We do not limit God’s word to only what is written. Remember, the church came before the bible.

Peace!!!

And how do you “back it up” without using the Catholic Church to state that the Biblical canon is (OT & NT), without using Catholic “tradition” which is circular reasoning. And how do you get around the fact that the same 27-book NT we agree on affirms the 39-book OT canon of the Pharisees & later Protestants by the very words of our Lord in Luke 16?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I honestly read that as why ‘Protestant babies are smaller’.

LOL! Now that is funny! Glad you realized what it actually says. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

All i see on this site is people saying Catholics have bigger Bibles than Protestants because of the Septuagint, but then you ask why Catholics don’t accept the books the Orthodox do which were also in the Septuagint and the answer you get is, because the Church says so . Forgive me but those two answers are self contradictory honestly.

That question is yet to be answered by Catholics, beyond “tradition” which is circular reasoning.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

All i see on this site is people saying Catholics have bigger Bibles than Protestants because of the Septuagint, but then you ask why Catholics don’t accept the books the Orthodox do which were also in the Septuagint and the answer you get is, because the Church says so . Forgive me but those two answers are self contradictory honestly.

Then what would be “your” answer, without employing either of these common circular arguments?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Again we’re looking for OT references in NT passages…and in particular references in the 7 Deuterocanonical books

Some of this understanding in the NT reference won’t be understood unless they have the Deuterocanonical references

Again, you can ALSO find NON-Deuterocanonical writings from the Septuagint in the NT too. So, if this is your argument, why aren’t these NON-Deuterocanonical writings in the Catholic OT too? Also, if citing is your argument, then why is Esther & the additions of Esther in the Catholic OT since citing is your argument for including the Deuterocanon? Also, simply citing isn’t a qualification for whether the NT writers considered them Scripture, and some of these citings were originally found in the Hebrew Bible, which is the original source.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Wrong. There was no closed canon of the OT in the 1st century

Again, there was no closed JEWISH canon that all Jews agreed on, but there was indeed a closed OT CANON, otherwise Jesus would not have been able to hold the Pharisees - specifically - for knowing what it was, which He did.

Depended on who He was talking to.

The vast majority of the time, He was addressing the Pharisees, and used the phrase “the Law & the Prophets” to describe the OT canon He was correcting them with, which Jimmy Akin affirmed was the same canon as later Protestants.

Yes to both.

AND

I’m not talking about their lack of authority, I’m talking about the authority of the Catholic Church in this matter to make decisions.

Since not all Jews believed in the same OT canon (Sadducees only believed in the 5 books of Moses) & since a Jewish Magisterium would have rejected the OT canon of Trent, the “authority” of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with what JESUS’ authority was on the OT, which was the OT canon of the Pharisees, which was the same as later Protestants.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And simply saying “because it is by the authority of the Catholic Church” doesn’t address the question. It assumes that the Catholic Church “is” the pillar & shield of the truth that St. Paul described, without testing to see if that is true,

Yes, but it’s not the “catholic” (small “c”) Christian Church Jesus built, because they don’t espouse to the same OT that He affirmed in Luke 16.

And no one is saying the church is not the pillar of truth that Jesus built.

No, I did not. I said the CATHOLIC (large “C” church) is not that church which is the pillar & shield, since they don’t have the same OT canon that Jesus professed.

To quote Aquinas

I quote Jesus:

“They [the Pharisees] have [echo: have possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the OT canon]” (Luke 16:29).

Jesus is God & the NT is God-breathed. Aquinas & his writings are not.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Then may I suggest you check out the book I mentioned in the OP, which was written by a former Catholic, who graduated from a Catholic college, and 60% of his over 600 references are from Catholic resources?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Catholic Church claims to follow Scripture, Tradition and the magisterium. However it says that only it can say what Scripture and Tradition or contain. Therefore it all comes down to what the Church says without any independent proof of authority.

Yep, circular reasoning, even though they don’t espouse to the same OT canon that Jesus did in the very NT canon they espouse to.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Deuterocanon = scripture
Apocrypha ≠ scripture

Those 7 books (Deuterocanon) the quotes came from, are scripture.

Where does the NT quotes say they are “Scripture.” Simply referencing them are not the same as saying they are Scripture, otherwise, you would have to add a LOT of other writings from the OT era to the Catholic OT. And how many of them are from EARLIER quotes from the Hebrew Bible, which are their original sources?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Both Traditions , oral and written , are already known to be authoritative.

14 times, the word “tradition” is used NEGATIVELY in the Bible. The three times it’s used positively, is when it’s referring to “tradition” that had already been written down, like in St. Paul’s epistles to the churches of Corinth & Thessalonica. What St. Paul is saying is that the “traditions” that he was writing about to be spread “either by word OR by letter,” weren’t separate traditions, but the same one communicated either way. The NT never mentions extra-biblical “traditions” as being equal with Scripture that were not also written down.

But none of this is really relevant to the OP, which is about the which OT canon Jesus affirmed, which is the OT canon of the Pharisees, which is the same as that of later Protestants. Therefore, the “church” Jesus said He would build cannot be the Catholic (capital “C”) Church of today, since it does not possess that “smaller” canon Jesus affirmed in Luke 16:29.

 

[adf417]

You can say it all you want but there is nothing circular with the Church declaring which books no longer are included in the liturgy. If the church hadn’t done this you would be quoting from the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas and others today. And then by doing so the bible as you know it is formed. Sorry, i know you don’t like it and may never agree with it, but you cannot argue with actual history.

Peace!!!

 

[ZMystiCat]

The fact that Irenaeus got multiple things wrong is completely relevant, since you are citing him for evidence for the meaning of Luke 16:20

First of all, I’m arguing that no one saw Jesus’ comment as a statement of canonicity. That is the issue. St. Irenaeus is one of the people that commented on Jesus’ words, and he is in line with how others saw Jesus’ comment as one of content, not canon.

And that’s really one of the core reasons why pointing out a “flaw” is irrelevant. On this matter, St. Irenaeus seems fully in line with the historical teaching on the passage. Sure, his canon may not have been exhaustive (though is any canon exhaustive?), but that was itself a matter under heavy debate for his time and often subject to local customs. Basically, we’re comparing a matter that has incredible historical consensus, of which St. Irenaeus is just one contributor, and another matter of which there was no consensus for hundreds of years.

Furthermore, the lack of consensus is itself just further evidence of how Jesus’ words were never taken as one of canonicity. So maybe St. Irenaeus’ canon was relevant - relevant in how he, like the rest of the Church - never saw this as a statement of canonicity.

And when you exegete the WHOLE passage (Luke 16:14-30), it’s explicitly clear that when Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, He is addressing their canon.

I’m getting tired of this assumption of it being about canon and not teaching. I’ve explained multiple times how the latter makes more sense, and if your reply to this (if any is given) offers nothing more than more assumptions rather than engaging with past objections to it, I’m muting this thread.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Everyone citing this Synod of Rome, which doesn’t even mention Baruch, thus the Old Testament had changed.

Although “some” ECF’s, acknowledged Baruch as part of Jeremiah, others listed them as separate books from Baruch & Jeremiah, including ECF’s from the fourth century when the Council of Rome convened. Plus, if you look closely at Rome’s list, as we know, Jeremiah & Lamentations was originally one book, but they are listed separately, as are the rest of the Deuterocanon, as are the 12 “minor prophets.” Yet, Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah as missing, as they are in the later Councils of Hippo & both Carthages, as well as from Jerome’s Vulgate. Sorry, but Baruch & the epistle were not in Rome or the other councils, Baruch would not be “added” to the Catholic OT for another 400 years after Jerome’s Vulgate.

Baruch was part of the OT canon in the 1st 3 centuries of the Church http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm AND Baruch Is There, Just Sometimes As Part of Jeremiah | Catholic Answers

Either way, Baruch is part of the OT canon.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Meaning they (Pharisees and Protestants) are not only outside the Church Jesus established, while still here in the flesh, (do you understand that point?) but are also minus 7 books that the the Church Jesus established, has in the canon of scripture, and a whole host of other issues that you are missing .

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees’ extra-biblical “traditions,” but He never rebuked them for having an incomplete canon. You are conflating the two (their canon & their extra-biblical traditions). Jesus affirmed their canon, while rebuking their traditions, which was the same as Protestants today, which even Jimmy Akin admitted to!

Jesus never said anything about what made a complete canon (listing by book). What He did was, He quoted stories from OT literature, stories which also came from the 7 books you don’t have now, and they didn’t have then, that is (those who didn’t read from the Septuagint translation).

 

[steve-b]

Name one NT writer, that was NOT already in the Church, already in place ?

RaisedCatholic:

The NT writers were either apostles (like St. Peter & St. Paul) or a close contemporary of them (like St. Mark & St. Luke).

As in they are in the Catholic Church that Jesus established Himself, on Peter as head and those in perfect union with Peter. . That is the Church Jesus established, and they the apostles are building and writing to and for. Here

RaisedCatholic:

They weren’t later non-apostolic writers, like Irenaeus. They simply wrote down what they witnessed & were taught by Jesus, including the church being the pillar of the church.

Irenaeus is a Bishop in succession to the apostles. THEY (the ECF’s et al) are in the One True Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, the Catholic Church.

RaisedCatholic:

And their miracles validated not only what they said, but also what they wrote down (or what others wrote down, like St. Paul validating St. Luke’s writings by calling them “Scripture” which St. Paul states Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed).

Do you have a specific quote you’re thinking of?

RaisedCatholic:

It is because of this apostolic authorship from the first century that we can trust the 27-book NT canon, which was inspired the moment it was penned in the first century, not because later Catholics “canonized” them later. All that the writers did was write down what they were teaching (these SAME “traditions either by letter OR by word”). The fact they were already in the church, isn’t the point, since our faith that the church is the pillar & shield of the truth isn’t based on THEM, but on the self-authoritative inspired Scriptures they wrote. This is why even St. Peter wrote it wasn’t because of his eye-witness if the Transfiguration of Jesus that we should believe him, because of the SCRIPTURES: “we have the prophetic word made MORE SURE” (2 Peter 1:19). This is when he goes on to state that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of “one’s” own interpretation but men moved by the Holy Spirit.

So, we MUST begin with the canon of Scripture (“the prophetic word made MORE SURE”) BEFORE we can be certain that the church really is the “pillar & shield of the truth.” Otherwise, we are simply “believing” in a particular religious entity to what the NT canon is, which is subjective, rather than Jesus & His Word, which states the OLD Testament canon is that of the Pharisees & later Protestants.

[cont]

You have created your own reality.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

All i see on this site is people saying Catholics have bigger Bibles than Protestants because of the Septuagint, but then you ask why Catholics don’t accept the books the Orthodox do which were also in the Septuagint and the answer you get is, because the Church says so . Forgive me but those two answers are self contradictory honestly.

Then what would be “your” answer, without employing either of these common circular arguments?

The answer is the same no matter how many times you use the word circular. The answer is just like God himself, it does not change.

Peace!!!