Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

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

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?

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Look this is what the full Septuagint looked like. This is the contents page of my New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). If we were going to say we use the Septuagint this is what our Old Testament should look like.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[adf417]

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.

I didn’t say espousing to the same canon of Scripture equates to interpreting the same way. I said if the bible is self-authoritative as you say it would tell you, me, and everyone else which of the plethra of docrtins out there that profess this self-authoritativeness you speak of is the correct one. Do you dare to profess this so those who are seeking can know? I have not noticed where you profess your denomination/religion so untill then any example of what i give will probably sound ambiguous to you.

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!!!

 

[adf417]

If the Bible is not self-authoritative, then how can you say it’s God-breathed (inspired)?

God-breathed (inspired) does not equal self-authoritative. If it did there would be no need for the NT.

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.

I do believe the bible has all these attributes, just not necessarily by your interpretations.

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.

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!!!

 

[halogirl]

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

 

[Thomasbradley312]

I honestly accept every book the Church accepts. However I believe there are more inspired texts, many more in fact that the Church knows about and has known about found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and New Testament Apocrypha which is also just as Inspired. For example I think every text the Orthodox accept which we don’t is scripture. I’m tired of the chains the Church and even more so the Protestants put on scripture. I like how Orthodox define it better where some books are more important than others and then you have useful books, books which aren’t canon yet are still in the Bible for teaching, and then writings of the saints, council teachings.
I wish the chains of what scripture is would be unshackled.

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.

 

[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.

The Catholic answer is always “because the Church says so” but this answer is never accepted and usually rebuffed. Then to further apologetics of the already given answer one, and i mean only one, of the justifications is “because it is in the Septuagint” and then even this is usually not accepted either. This apologetic has been hashed out ad nauseam so some Catholics begin with “because it is in the Septuagint” because the “because the Church says so” is assumed the hearer already knows it and don’t want to hear it.

Peace!!!

 

[steve-b]

It is not true that you will not find the Old Testament references without the Septuagint. Your reference says: [snip for space]
full reference found HERE

When those references were used it was only snippets of a quote. Point being, it points to and requires reading the context in full.

Example;

. Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents

Deutero
Wisdom 11:7 7 in rebuke for the decree to slay the infants, thou gavest them abundant water unexpectedly,… ** point being, one is encouraged to go and read the context in Wisdom**

e.g.
. Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Deutero
1 Macc 1:54 54 Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year,[a] they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah,

2 Macc 8:17 15 if not for their own sake, yet for the sake of the covenants made with their fathers, and because he had called them by his holy and glorious name. Keep reading through vs 17

Note the footnote [a] like stories in the books of the NT, that give the same story with similar points, maybe just a bit differently so also the OT does the same

e.g.

. Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Deutero
1 Macc 2:28 28 And he and his sons fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city.

Who is “he” in that passage talking about? Mattathi′, = He is in the line of Our Lord.

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

Deutero
Jud 16:17 Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever.

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

 

[steve-b]

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

RaisedCatholic:

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.

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

RaisedCatholic:

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.

Depended on who He was talking to.

RaisedCatholic:

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.

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.

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,

The only Church there, is the Catholic Church.

RaisedCatholic:

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

You just did previously

RaisedCatholic:

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.

Jesus said, to His only Church He established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

May I suggest , pay attention to THAT authority Jesus gave His Church?

Especially considering this subject of canon of scripture.

RaisedCatholic:

And by “catholic,” that doesn’t refer to the two Greek words from Acts 9:31 combined which means “universal.”

Protest all you want. Deny all you want. That’s on you. History shows, the name, Catholic Church, in writing, has been there from the beginning.

Protestors and unbelievers of all kinds, have always been around. HERE

AND

There is no evidence in scripture, or tradition, that Jesus went after THEM who left, or to try and convince them to believe, stay, come back etc.

To quote Aquinas

For one who has faith no explanation is necessary, for one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

 

[adf417]

To quote Aquinas

For one who has faith no explanation is necessary, for one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

Man, i sure wish i used quote this in my last post.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To quote Aquinas

For one who has faith no explanation is necessary, for one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

Man, i sure wish i used quote this in my last post.

I’m sure that quote will find it’s way into future posts

 

[SyCarl]

The question is not whether the New Testament contains things that are also mentioned in the Apocrypha. Rather it should be where the original reference is found. If a reference is in the Old Testament then whether it is also mentioned in the Apocrypha is irrelevant since the Old Testament precedes the Apocrypha. The passage in the Apocrypha itself would be referencing the Old Testament one. Repeating the Old Testament expression does not make the repetition Scripture or inspired.

 

[SyCarl]

The problem is that the authority of the Catholic Church cannot be shown without Scripture. If it requires Scripture then the proof of the authority cannot rely on Scripture since by your reasoning we cannot know what Scripture is without having the authority first. Therefore Scripture cannot be used to establish who has the authority to determine what is Scripture.

There is also the matter of interpretation. For example, you refer to Matthew 16:16-18 to show the Catholic Church was founded on Peter and has the authority you ascribe to it. But that depends on how that passage is interpreted. You are assuming what is meant by church, what it is founded on, what binding and loosing means and what it means that the gates of Hades will not overpower it and your assumptions are based on your interpretation which happens to agree with what the Catholic Church says. What it comes down to is the Church saying it has authority because it says it does.

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.

 

[steve-b]

The question is not whether the New Testament contains things that are also mentioned in the Apocrypha. Rather it should be where the original reference is found. If a reference is in the Old Testament then whether it is also mentioned in the Apocrypha is irrelevant since the Old Testament precedes the Apocrypha. The passage in the Apocrypha itself would be referencing the Old Testament one. Repeating the Old Testament expression does not make the repetition Scripture or inspired.

Deuterocanon = scripture
Apocrypha ≠ scripture

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

 

[steve-b]

The problem is that the authority of the Catholic Church cannot be shown without Scripture.

it’s also there in scripture.

Q:​

and the answer should be obvious

When were the words Jesus spoke effective…when He said them, or only when they were written down and decreed as scripture?

Point being

Before there was anything written down, (like scripture) there was oral Tradition. And it was authoritative. Both Traditions, oral and written , are already known to be authoritative. We know that from what is passed on orally and what is written. Paul validates that HERE

SyCarl:

If it requires Scripture then the proof of the authority cannot rely on Scripture since by your reasoning we cannot know what Scripture is without having the authority first. Therefore Scripture cannot be used to establish who has the authority to determine what is Scripture.

that is why, proof is NOT by scripture alone.

SyCarl:

There is also the matter of interpretation. For example, you refer to Matthew 16:16-18 to show the Catholic Church was founded on Peter and has the authority you ascribe to it. But that depends on how that passage is interpreted.

You are assuming what is meant by church, what it is founded on, what binding and loosing means and what it means that the gates of Hades will not overpower it and your assumptions are based on your interpretation which happens to agree with what the Catholic Church says. What it comes down to is the Church saying it has authority because it says it does.

I don’t have to interpret a thing. The Church that was there and received that orally from Jesus, told me how to take that passage.

Matthew, was already in this Church and took what is passed onto him orally, wrote it down, to and for, this same Church.

SyCarl:

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.

The Catholic Church is the only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect communion with Peter. AND Jesus gave all His promises to His Church. And Jesus said to make His thought perfectly clear, about everyone in His Church

Jn 17: I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

If one wants His promises, they need to be “IN” His Church.

 

[JohnR77]

The point is just because a Jew, like a Pharisee, rejects Jesus as their Messiah does not equate with them having the incorrect canon. That is a false correlation and false assumption that can’t be backed up with

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be assuming that the Canon accepted by the pharisees of 33AD was the same as the apostate Jewish Hebrew Canon of 90 AD. I realize some catholics think that way but I do not. You have no written record to affirm your assumption if that’s what you’re making.

I believe the pharisees of 33AD generally Viewed the Septuagint at As good candidates for being the Inspired Word of God but had no definitive decision on the Canon.

The early christians I believe used many books If not most of Septuagint to evangelize the Jews into Christianity… And it was in response to that that the Jews of 90 AD reduced their cannon back down
into the 39 books That they accept today.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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.

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, even though he rejected most of the Deuterocanon (he only accepted the additions of Daniel & Esther in his OT list). Of course that doesn’t mean he got “everything” wrong. What he wrote that coincides with the NT is obviously correct, but not necessarily his view of a particular passage, like him getting wrong that Jesus was 60 when He died. And Jimmy Akin is extremely relevant too, since he is the SENIOR apologist for Catholic Answers, and you are on a Catholic Answers forum! As far as Protestants, their exegesis is based on Scripture alone, not extra-biblical “traditions” too. 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. Essentially, He is saying, “They have the OT. If they won’t believe the OT, they won’t believe Me even if I raise someone like Lazarus from the dead.” Jesus repeats this in St. John’s gospel when He tells the Pharisees, you don’t believe “Moses” even though he wrote about Me. “Moses” is a synonym for the first 5 books of the Bible, just as “the Prophets” refers to everything else in the OT. So, when Jesus said “Moses AND the Prophets,” this refers to the OT canon = “Moses” (first 5 books of the Bible) + “the Prophets” (everything else in the OT), regardless of Irenaeus’ eisegesis, or anyone else’s for that matter.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be assuming that the Canon accepted by the pharisees of 33AD was the same as the apostate Jewish Hebrew Canon of 90 AD. I realize some catholics think that way but I do not. You have no written record to affirm your assumption if that’s what you’re making.

Hillel, who was the grandfather of Gamaliel from the book of Acts who was the teacher of St. Paul, established the Pharisaic school of Hillel. His OT canon was identical to that of Rabbinic Judaism in the post-70 A.D. first & second century era that espoused to the "smaller’ OT canon. Catholic author Gary Michuta (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger) admitted that first century Rabbinic Judaism “adopted” this same OT canon of earlier Pharisees from before A.D. 70. This was discussed on a Catholic Answers YouTube video with him.

I believe the pharisees of 33AD generally Viewed the Septuagint at As good candidates for being the Inspired Word of God but had no definitive decision on the Canon.

They did, but their “version” of the Septuagint was much smaller. Trent Horn from Catholic Answers even admitted in his podcast that the first “canon” that was translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible (which excluded the Deuterocanon). When Jesus quoted from the OT to respond to the Pharisees about marriage & divorce, He asked them “Have you not read?” Since the version of the Septuagint they would have “read” from would have excluded the Deuterocanon, Jesus was affirming their version of the Septuagint they were citing too.

The early christians I believe used many books If not most of Septuagint to evangelize the Jews into Christianity… And it was in response to that that the Jews of 90 AD reduced their cannon back down
into the 39 books That they accept today.

This is a common assumption, but it’s false. The “school” (not council, which is commonly thought) at Jamnia around A.D. 90 didn’t “reduce” the OT canon to 39 books. The school did not establish or discuss what belongs in the canon, because it was already established by. Gary Michuta also admitted that after A.D. 70 only two factions of Judaism survived: the Pharisees & the Christians, and the Pharisees became Rabbinic Judaism in the late first & second centuries. And it was the Pharisee’s canon that Rabbinic Judaism adopted. There is no historic evidence from the first century, or before, that the Pharisees (or any Jew for that matter) believed in the inspiration of the Deuterocanon. Later Christians might have “used” it, but never explicitly acknowledged it as “Scripture” explicitly, until at least the second century, but they also acknowledged works Catholic call “Apocrypha” as Scripture as well, like Irenaeus did.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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!