Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

  • Thread starter Thread starter RaisedCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
steve-b:
True, there was no bible till the canon was finalized in 382 at the council of Rome and the decree of Pope Damasus I .

The canon went through development.
Click to expand...
This is true about the New Testament, but didn’t Jesus know what the Old Testament parameter were, since He continuously referenced it by saying things like “As it is written,” "Have you not read?," “Scripture says,” “The Law & the Prophets,” etc? BTW, there is a section in his book about the Council of Rome, as well as the other 4th century church councils. I can imagine he goes more into the canon there.
Click to expand...
🤟😎 absolutely.

Problem is, there was a disagreement between

Which Jews have the say in the matter Re: books to accept?
  1. the Jews who rejected Jesus and are NOT in the Church Jesus established?

or​

  1. the Jews who accepted Jesus and were in the only Church Jesus established?
It’s #2
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Problem is, there was a disagreement between

Which Jews have the say in the matter Re: books to accept?
  1. the Jews who rejected Jesus and are NOT in the Church Jesus established?

or​

  1. the Jews who accepted Jesus and were in the only Church Jesus established?
It’s #2
Click to expand...
Don’t know if it’s that simple. Jesus clearly held even the unbelieving Jews who rejected Him for knowing what the OT canon was. He frequently told them “Have YOU not read?” & “As it is written.” So, I don’t think the fact they rejected Him automatically means they had the “wrong” OT Scriptures, since Jesus is saying they “read” them, which means they had to have possession of them.

But your comment still doesn’t address “the canon going through development.” If was still going through development, then that means Jesus couldn’t have held the Jews accountable for knowing what they were. But He did.

And as you said, “which Jews”? According to the book, Jimmy Akin said the Pharisees & later Protestants had possession of the exact same books. And it was the Pharisees who Jesus addressed the OT canon of Scripture with, when He said “They have Moses & the Prophets.” So, it seems it was the Pharisees, not the Sadducees or any other Jewish sect, that possessed the right OT canon, despite rejecting Him. This would seem to make it all the worse, since they would have ZERO excuse for rejecting Christ, since they possessed the entire OT canon, which prophesied about the coming Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled perfectly.
 
As you say, it is not that simple. With regard to having “ZERO excuse for rejecting Christ,” it is PRECISELY on the basis of a close scriptural reading of the Hebrew Bible that Jews do reject Jesus as the Messiah, let alone G-d Himself. The interpretive debates on the meaning of key verses are virtually endless, as you might already know.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
steve-b:
Problem is, there was a disagreement between

Which Jews have the say in the matter Re: books to accept?
  1. the Jews who rejected Jesus and are NOT in the Church Jesus established?

or​

  1. the Jews who accepted Jesus and were in the only Church Jesus established?
It’s #2
Click to expand...
Don’t know if it’s that simple. Jesus clearly held even the unbelieving Jews who rejected Him for knowing what the OT canon was. He frequently told them “Have YOU not read?” & “As it is written.” So, I don’t think the fact they rejected Him automatically means they had the “wrong” OT Scriptures, since Jesus is saying they “read” them, which means they had to have possession of them.

But your comment still doesn’t address “the canon going through development.” If was still going through development, then that means Jesus couldn’t have held the Jews accountable for knowing what they were. But He did.

And as you said, “which Jews”? According to the book, Jimmy Akin said the Pharisees & later Protestants had possession of the exact same books. And it was the Pharisees who Jesus addressed the OT canon of Scripture with, when He said “They have Moses & the Prophets.” So, it seems it was the Pharisees, not the Sadducees or any other Jewish sect, that possessed the right OT canon, despite rejecting Him. This would seem to make it all the worse, since they would have ZERO excuse for rejecting Christ, since they possessed the entire OT canon, which prophesied about the coming Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled perfectly.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’ve seen these NT references listing OT references/quotes as sources from Deuterocanonical books. DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
As you say, it is not that simple. With regard to having “ZERO excuse for rejecting Christ,” it is PRECISELY on the basis of a close scriptural reading of the Hebrew Bible that Jews do reject Jesus as the Messiah, let alone G-d Himself. The interpretive debates on the meaning of key verses are virtually endless, as you might already know.
Click to expand...
But they didn’t reject Christ because they possessed the correct OT canon, or were “missing books” (like the Deuterocanonals). It was because of their man-made “traditions” they had “added” to their OT canon that they rejected Him (Matthew 15:1-9). They were expecting a military Messiah to overthrow their Roman oppressors, not one who was going to die for their sins. They were leaning more on their traditions, than the Scriptures they possessed, which resulted in them rejecting Him. Compare that to the disciples, like St. Philip who told St. Nathanael that they found the Messiah who written in the Law of Moses & the Prophets (St. John Chapter 1). St. Philip recognized the Messiah based solely on the OT Scripture, not anything that had been “added” to them.

And, again, which Scriptural canon? Possessed by which sect of the Jews? Couldn’t be the Sadducees, since they didn’t believe in “the Prophets” like St. Philip did. Couldn’t be the Essenes, since they possessed books in their library not even found in Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Bibles, let alone Protestant Bibles. It seems to be the Pharisees who possessed the exact same books in Protestant Bibles today…which is what the author of the book seems to be saying, based on the New Testament.
 
steve-b said:
Maybe you’ve seen these NT references listing OT references/quotes from Deuterocanonical books. https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/
Click to expand...
I saw something similar on Jimmy Akins’ Web site. And I also saw or heard a podcast by Trent Horn that the NT also quotes & alludes to books not found in Catholic nor Protestant Bibles. Plus, not every book in either canon is quoted or referenced in the NT, like Esther & Song of Songs. So, I don’t know how the fact “most” (but not all) of the Deuterocanon is referenced in the OT really helps. And what about 1 Enoch? Not only does St. Jude quote from it, he also calls it “prophecy.” So why isn’t 1 Enoch in the NT?
 
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
steve-b:
Maybe you’ve seen these NT references listing OT references/quotes from Deuterocanonical books. https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/
Click to expand...
I saw something similar on Jimmy Akins’ Web site. And I also saw or heard a podcast by Trent Horn that the NT also quotes & alludes to books not found in Catholic nor Protestant Bibles. Plus, not every book in either canon is quoted or referenced in the NT, like Esther & Song of Songs. So, I don’t know how the fact “most” (but not all) of the Deuterocanon is referenced in the OT really helps. And what about 1 Enoch? Not only does St. Jude quote from it, he also calls it “prophecy.” So why isn’t 1 Enoch in the NT?
Click to expand...
All I can say, it all boils down to authority. Jesus gave His authority to His Church. The pillar and foundation of truth. People do well who follow that authority.
 
Nein! No ‘man-made’ traditions (meaning, rabbinical traditions) were necessary. A close reading of the Hebrew Bible alone suffices to reveal that Jesus was not the Messiah and/or G-d. And not even the lack of fulfillment of the biblical prophecies, including the lack of peace in the world, is needed to reject Him. It is the meaning of the concepts of sin, salvation, redemption, heaven, hell, HaSatan, the commandments, and numerous others that the Hebrew Bible makes quite clear and which Jesus, or perhaps more so His disciples, change to something unbiblical, that lend support to the notion that the Messiah has not yet arrived. The more profound rabbinical interpretations of the Prophets and the Law–which are never permitted to deviate from these books according to Pharisaic tradition–just puts the icing on the cake, so to speak, but are not even needed.

I must agree that the Sadducees differ with regard to which Books of the Bible they accept, and so a different argument is necessary if they are used as a basis of belief.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
All I can say, it all boils down to authority. Jesus gave His authority to His Church. The pillar and foundation of truth. People do well who follow that authority.
Click to expand...
But again, don’t we get to the church being the pillar & foundation of the truth from the NT? IOW, don’t we need to first know “what” the NT is before we get to defining the church? Doing otherwise, seems to be using A to prove B, and use B to prove A, which a bit subjective & circular in reasoning. Besides, it still doesn’t address some of the points in the free section on Amazon in the book, like that Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees, and Jimmy Akin acknowledging that the Pharisees had the same books in their OT as Protestants do today. Just out of curiosity, did you read the free online portion of the book on Amazon. It did. It’s an interesting take.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Hebrew Bible alone suffices to reveal that Jesus was not the Messiah and/or G-d. And not even the lack of fulfillment of the biblical prophecies, including the lack of peace in the world, is needed to reject Him. It is the meaning of the concepts of sin, salvation, redemption, heaven, hell, HaSatan, the commandments, and numerous others that the Hebrew Bible makes quite clear and which Jesus, or perhaps more so His disciples, change to something unbiblical, that lend support to the notion that the Messiah has not yet arrived. The more profound rabbinical interpretations of the Prophets and the Law–which are never permitted to deviate from these books according to Pharisaic tradition–just puts the icing on the cake, so to speak, but are not even needed.

I must agree that the Sadducees differ with regard to which Books of the Bible they accept, and so a different argument is necessary if they are used as a basis of belief.
Click to expand...
I see you are Jewish. Shalom! I understand that you don’t believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah based on the Hebrew Bible, which I think it is safe to assume that Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and other Christians on this forum would wholeheartedly disagree with you. But since the OP is not about whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah or not, but about what the boundaries of the OT canon were, as a Jew I think you would be in agreement with the author of this book who argues strictly for the books found in the Hebrew Bible, and - curiously - he argues from Jesus, His disciples, and St. Paul, who seem to be on your side, based on the NT.

Other than the author being a convert from Catholicism, you most likely might agree with the conclusion of his book, since it appears he’s defending the Hebrew Bible you embrace.
meltzerboy2 said:
I must agree that the Sadducees differ with regard to which Books of the Bible they accept, and so a different argument is necessary if they are used as a basis of belief.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the crux of the argument of the book: Jesus acknowledged the OT of the Pharisees who had possession of “the Law & the Prophets” while the Sadducees only acknowledged “the Law,” which means their OT canon was incomplete, unlike the Pharisees.
 
Last edited:
RaisedCatholic said:
Sorry, had to look it up again on Amazon. This is the link used in his book:

How did the Old Testament canon develop?
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. It’s kind of interesting that Jimmy Akin went the route of declaring that the Pharisees had a canon, since most seem to focus on the Council of Jamnia indicating a lack of any canon. Perhaps this was due to the quick nature of the video, since Jimmy Akin does go the Jamnia route in his much fuller article on EWTN:
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Basically, the video seems to be Jimmy Akin’s cliff notes version, so probably not the greatest citation in the world. My guess is that it was to center his argument around the “possession” comment, but even that is kind of weird since the actual context of the comment (Luke 16:29-31) treats the matter more as them having a guide, not as them being final authorities on what that guide is.

So it kind of seems like a cherry picked quote without a purpose. It’s certainly not the worst I’ve seen, since it is accurate and in context for the source itself. With that said, it still kind of gives me the impression of lazy research and reasoning.
 
I didn’t mean to turn this into an apologetics argument; I don’t even like debating about Jesus’ status in the apologetics forum. I was just instinctively reacting to something you said in one of your posts. And I do agree with you regarding the main topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:
ZMystiCat said:
Basically, the video seems to be Jimmy Akin’s cliff notes version, so probably not the greatest citation in the world. My guess is that it was to center his argument around the “possession” comment, but even that is kind of weird since the actual context of the comment (Luke 16:29-31) treats the matter more as them having a guide, not as them being final authorities on what that guide is.

So it kind of seems like a cherry picked quote without a purpose. It’s certainly not the worst I’ve seen, since it is accurate and in context for the source itself. With that said, it still kind of gives me the impression of lazy research and reasoning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for actually giving the Akin quote from EWTN.com, and not just the link. So often, people post a link that is so LONG, but never narrow it down. People don’t like to read an nearly endless resource, especially when multiple ones are posted. So kudos to you! 🙂

I looked up the Greek word for “have” from Luke 16:29 where Jesus said “They ‘have’ Moses & the Prophets.” And it does mean “to have possession” of something. It’s where we get the English word “echo,” which is how it’s transliterated from the Greek, like when you yell into a well or cave & your exact words “echo” back to you. The Greek meaning means the same thing: The Pharisees “echo” (have possession of) Moses & the Prophets (the complete OT canon). The Greek seems to support this.

Regardless, Jimmy Akin’s video does explicitly state that in no uncertain terms that the Pharisee canon & the Protestant OT are the exact same. Coupled with the Pharisees “having possession” of the complete OT canon, which Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not read” / “As it is written” / “The Scriptures say” / “the Law & the Prophets” etc), the NT strongly supports He was talking about the Hebrew Bible, which is the same as Protestant OTs.

Also, the “possession” argument is only in the first chapter in the free section on Amazon. He has several other chapters, which I’m guessing he addresses other arguments there?
 
Last edited:
adf417 said:
No! We really don’t. You continue to have it backwards!

Peace!!!
Click to expand...
Then to play devil’s advocate, how do you know the church is the pillar & support of the truth - without using the NT & without saying “because the church says it is”? IOW, don’t use the church as a defense for the church, which would be circular.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I didn’t mean to turn this into an apologetics argument; I don’t even like debating about Jesus’ status in the apologetics forum. I was just instinctively reacting to something you said in one of your posts. And I do agree with you regarding the main topic of the thread.
Click to expand...
Baruch HaShem!
 
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
adf417:
No! We really don’t. You continue to have it backwards!

Peace!!!
Click to expand...
Then to play devil’s advocate, how do you know the church is the pillar & support of the truth - without using the NT & without saying “because the church says it is”? IOW, don’t use the church as a defense for the church, which would be circular.
Click to expand...
Do you really not believe the church was established before a single word of the bible was written? You are asking me to have faith without using faith. That’s not how it works in a faith based religion.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top