Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[adf417]

Again, my point is that since the Bible is self-authoritative, we can trust what the NT says about the OT canon, which supports the Pharisee & later Protestant OT.

Again, your primes “the Bible is self-authoritative” is wrong and why you continue not grasp something outside your paradigm. Not really much i can do to help you with this but i will reiterate that if your above statement were true ALL protestants would have the same beliefs on ALL issues and they do not, not EVEN the canon of scripture.

Peace!!!

 

[SyCarl]

It is not true that you will not find the Old Testament references without the Septuagint. Your reference says:
“Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.”

Yet Matthew himself tells us where this prophecy is.

Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
(Mat 2:16-18)

Again, the page you linked indicates:
“Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.”

However Jesus tells us where the prophecy is.

When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains:
(Mat 24:15-16)

And in another example the page you gave says:

Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

However this clearly comes from Isaiah.

And they shall go out, and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched: and they shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.
(Isa 66:24)

These are just a few examples that I noted off the top of my head. The bible quotes I give are from the Douhay Rheims 1899.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

The order of the Old Testament begins here:Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Joshua Nave one book, judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

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

 

[Darryl_B]

To me the protestant bible is smaller because it has finer print.

I need a truck load of lawyers, not theologians.

 

[steve-b]

if Jews didn’t have those 7 books to reference , they couldn’t connect Jesus stories.

What you aren’t getting, Jesus quoted from books you don’t have in YOUR Protestant bibles, but are in Catholic bibles, which is HIS Church.

RaisedCatholic:

Jesus & the NT writers “referenced” more writings than just the Hebrew Bible & the Deuteros, like 1 Enoch which St. Jude actually quotes (not just referenced or alluded to) & even calls a “prophecy.” So unless you are going to add 1 Enoch & countless other writings the NT references, there is no reason for the Deuteros to be in the OT. Jesus quoted from books you don’t have in YOUR Catholic Bible either.

The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church our Lord established on Peter and those in full union with Peter. Ergo follow the Catholic Church and what it teaches.

RaisedCatholic:

Again, how do you come up with the concept of the “church being the pillar & shield of the truth” without first having an established NT canon? If you say “the Catholic Church,” then you are using “A” to prove “B” to prove “A,” which is subjective & circular?

Do you think the canon established itself?
All the writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for. Did you not consider that?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all , universal ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία,= ekklésia = church ,
καθ’, = kata = according to ,
ὅλης, = holos = whole / all / universal ,
τῆς, = ho = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

RaisedCatholic:

In context, that was referring to a local region, and before believers were called “Christian” in Antioch, they were called “the Way.” And even if you want to call it “catholic,” again, this term originally meant “universal,”

I gave you the answer to that . Open the links I gave .

Given we have the bible today because of the authority of the Catholic Church, what I gave supports conversation for this topic

 

[steve-b]

It’s above my pay grade to say which of the other writings not accepted, are or are not scripture. The Church makes / made, that decision. And I’m sure it wasn’t because they were “cherry picking”

RaisedCatholic:

Not on the OT canon, which was established BEFORE the time of Christ, because He held the Jews - specifically the Pharisees - for knowing what the OT canon was.

And Jews who followed the Septuagint outnumbered the Jews in Jerusalem.

point being

The canon of the OT and NT were concluded by the Catholic Church

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That’s the same argument Mormons use for their Book of Mormon.

Except that they can’t, since the Book of Mormon wasn’t written until the 19th century by Joseph Smith, & has countless errors & contradictions in it. The Hebrew Bible & the NT doesn’t. Again, the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to “define” the OLD Testament, because it was already defined BEFORE the time of Jesus.

You honestly think that Jesus the one who created all that is, and in extension His Church that HE personally established while in the flesh, has no say in the matter?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You honestly think that Jesus the one who created all that is, and in extension His Church that HE personally established while in the flesh, has no say in the matter?

I never even alluded to that. In fact, I’ve said the opposite. Jesus Himself stated what the OT canon was when He referred to it as “the Law & the Prophets” (or “Moses & the Prophets”), & then acknowledged that the Pharisees had possession of that OT canon. Coupled with Jimmy Akin affirming that the Pharisee’s canon was the same as Protestants today, Jesus was explicit that canon is the complete OT. So, I believe Jesus, and any church body that also affirms the same canon He asserted.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And Jews who followed the Septuagint outnumbered the Jews in Jerusalem.

And according to Trent Horn, the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was Hebrew Bible, not the Deuteros too. The version of the Septuagint that included the Deuteros, which these “outnumbered Jews” accepted, came much later.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I gave you the answer to that . Open the links I gave .

Given we have the bible today because of the authority of the Catholic Church, what I gave supports conversation for this topic

I did. It doesn’t change the fact the OT canon was established BEFORE the time of Jesus, & He affirmed what it was, and held the Pharisees accountable for knowing what it was.

Let me put it another way: "How did a believing Jew know that books like Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture 50 years before Jesus? You don’t have a Magisterium back then to answer at that point in time. Because Jesus plainly held people accountable for knowing what it was. You can’t go “Jewish Magisterium,” because: 1) not all Jews accepted the same OT canon; and 2) even if they did, they wouldn’t have accepted the same OT canon that Trent did. And then you’d have a contradiction between two alleged infallible sources.

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, which can only be true if at the bare minimum it possessed the same OT canon that Jesus affirmed: the canon of the Pharisees, which is the canon of later Protestants. You can’t prove “A” to prove “B” to prove “A,” which is what you are doing.

And no one is saying the church is not the pillar of truth that Jesus built. The fact that the Catholic Church accepts books that Jesus didn’t accept, that means they aren’t that church St. Paul was talking about. And by “catholic,” that doesn’t refer to the two Greek words from Acts 9:31 combined which means “universal.” That church did possess that complete OT canon, which is not the same “church” that later accepted the Deuteros that got added to the Septuagint.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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

Neither does the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, & the fifth century Carthage Council. Plus, didn’t you, or someone else, mention that the 1 & 2 Esdras listed in these councils are not the same ones listed at Trent? They are more closer to Ezra-Nehemiah & 3 Esdras.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

These are just a few examples that I noted off the top of my head. The bible quotes I give are from the Douhay Rheims 1899.

Nice job, especially using the Douay-Rheims as a citation & evidence!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

Jesus & the NT writers “referenced” more writings than just the Hebrew Bible & the Deuteros, like 1 Enoch which St. Jude actually quotes (not just referenced or alluded to) & even calls a “prophecy.” So unless you are going to add 1 Enoch & countless other writings the NT references, there is no reason for the Deuteros to be in the OT. Jesus quoted from books you don’t have in YOUR Catholic Bible either.

That wasn’t your argument I was addressing. You said since the NT writers referenced Deuteros then it belongs in the OT. Well, if that is your argument, then since the NT writers ALSO references Apocryphal literature not found in Catholic OTs, then by using your same argument, then they too should be in the Catholic OT. Replying with the statement you made evades this rebuttal argument.

RaisedCatholic:

Again, how do you come up with the concept of the “church being the pillar & shield of the truth” without first having an established NT canon? If you say “the Catholic Church,” then you are using “A” to prove “B” to prove “A,” which is subjective & circular?

And the only reason you believe this is because you believe all the NT writers were in the Church. But that still doesn’t explain “how” you know what the Church is without using the NT to define what the Church is. You are still using circular reasoning (using “A” to prove “B” to prove “A”).

Again, the canon was first revealed by God to ISRAEL, which was adopted by the Pharisees, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16, and then later God revealed to the CHURCH what the New Testament was. IOW, the OT canon was already established by the time of Christ. The fact the later Catholic Church accepted a “bigger” OT canon, demonstrates they accepted books the first century Church & Jesus did not.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Again, your primes “the Bible is self-authoritative” is wrong and why you continue not grasp something outside your paradigm. Not really much i can do to help you with this but i will reiterate that if your above statement were true ALL protestants would have the same beliefs on ALL issues and they do not, not EVEN the canon of scripture.

Peace!!!

Different Protestant groups espousing to the same canon of Scripture does not equate to them interpreting it the same way. Virtually all Christian traditions (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc) espouse to the same 27-book-canon of the NT, but they don’t all interpret the same passages in the same way. It simply means most of them are not interpreting those same passages correctly. That’s why this argument of yours doesn’t work.

If the Bible is not self-authoritative, then how can you say it’s God-breathed (inspired)? By self-authoritative, it has the same attributes God does: inerrant, lacks contradictions, doesn’t lie, prophecies that come to pass are fulfilled, written by prophets & apostles of God & Christ (or their close contemporaries, etc.) This is what “self-authoritative” means. If you don’t believe this, then there is no reason you should trust anything in it, including the church is the pillar & shield of the truth, since it is in the NT that you discover this.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So first of all, we see that at least St. Irenaeus did not take the “brothers” as referencing just Pharisees, but all the living. He also took the comment about “Moses and the prophets” to be about their writings , not about the canon.

Irenaeus also rejected most of the Deuteros (except for Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah), as did Doctors of the Church & other ECFs. Irenaeus also believed Jesus was 60 when He was crucified, even though Luke wrote He was “about 30.” Uninspired writings are neither more or less valid than any other uninspired writings in ones understanding of Scripture, whether it’s from antiquity or contemporary. And it doesn’t change the fact that Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers affirmed the Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same writings, and it was these writings Jesus affirmed, as did St. Paul who was a Pharisee.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

As for “the Septuagint”, we do not really know all the books that were once comprised in it, because nobody but Origen was putting all the scrolls and codices together into one big book. And he only did it so he could put out a giant comparison edition called the Hexapla, showing how every known Greek Scripture translation was alike and differed, including the books each one skipped or that nobody could find. (With spaces left in case they got found.)

In the book I referenced in the OP, the Chronology at the front of the book states there was a Letter of Aristeas written before the time of Christ (which was referenced by the Jew, Philo of Alexandria) which stated the Septuagint originally was limited to the 5 books of Moses. Trent Horn from Catholic Answers stated the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible (which would exclude the Deuteros). This is all we know prior to the first third of the first century what was in the Septuagint. Over time, more & more books got added to it, including the Deuteros & other Apocrypha literature.

To go back to the original subject, though, none of this Canon stuff came to a head until after the destruction of the Temple, and the separation of Christian and Jewish traditions, as well as the remaking of a Judaism without Temple or sacrifices.

According to Gary Michuta (What Catholic Bibles Are Bigger), the two main Jewish sects that survived after the destruction of the Temple were the Pharisees & the Christians. The Pharisees (who later became Rabbinic Judaism) adopted the Pharisee canon that are the same as Protestants today. It was the Pharisee canon that Jesus affirmed. Later Christians began to accept books that got added to the Septuagint that weren’t in the original, most likely to distant themselves from Rabbinic Judaism whose predecessors rejected Christ. Unfortunately, it sounds like they equated the Jews who rejected Christ to them not having an incomplete OT canon, which is a false assumption.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

As for “the Septuagint”, we do not really know all the books that were once comprised in it, because nobody but Origen was putting all the scrolls and codices together into one big book. And he only did it so he could put out a giant comparison edition called the Hexapla, showing how every known Greek Scripture translation was alike and differed, including the books each one skipped or that nobody could find. (With spaces left in case they got found.)

And as far as we know, very few copies of the Hexapla were made, and they are all lost now.

The book I mentioned in the OP has a chapter on the Septuagint & mentions Origen. I wonder if he mentions the Hexapla?

 

[ZMystiCat]

And it doesn’t change the fact that Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers affirmed the Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same writings, and it was these writings Jesus affirmed, as did St. Paul who was a Pharisee.

You’re ignoring the core issue (so I won’t ask for citations) - The phrase has never, as far as I can tell, been understood as being of the canon. Whether or not St. Irenaeus got everything right is irrelevant, and I could dismiss the Protestant for the same reason. Whether or not Jimmy Akin acknowledges that Protestants and Pharisees have the same canon is irrelevant. The understanding of the phrase being about canon rather than teaching is practically foreign to Christian history, making it incredibly unlikely to be a definitive declaration by Jesus about the canon.

 

[steve-b]

The order of the Old Testament begins here:Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Joshua Nave one book, judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Thomasbradley312:

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

Not necessarily

. Baruch Is There, Just Sometimes As Part of Jeremiah | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You honestly think that Jesus the one who created all that is, and in extension His Church that HE personally established while in the flesh, has no say in the matter?

I never even alluded to that. In fact, I’ve said the opposite. Jesus Himself stated what the OT canon was when He referred to it as “the Law & the Prophets” (or “Moses & the Prophets”), & then acknowledged that the Pharisees had possession of that OT canon. Coupled with Jimmy Akin affirming that the Pharisee’s canon was the same as Protestants today, Jesus was explicit that canon is the complete OT. So, I believe Jesus, and any church body that also affirms the same canon He asserted.

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 .