Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[RaisedCatholic]

Again, we’re dealing with authority to declare what is canonical and what is not. You don’t seem to be understanding that point.

And what you’re not getting is that the OT canon was already established before Jesus was even born & before the church was ever established, which excluded the Deuterocanon. So, the church doesn’t have the authority to “add” to the canon books Jesus didn’t affirm.

Protestants, have choice, like any one on the planet does, but have no authority in this matter to determine what is or what is not scripture.

Neither does the Catholic Church in excess of what Jesus affirmed. And your response ignored the comment I made: that if you’re going to use the argument that the NT merely “quoting” the Deuteros, then to be consistent with your argument, then you must also include non-Deuteros since they also are quoted in the NT too. But you don’t, because you are inconsistent with your argument. And simply using the “authority” of the Catholic church is assuming that is the “church” Jesus built. But if it was, they wouldn’t be “adding” to the OT canon books Jesus rejected. But they do, so they aren’t.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Sure you did. All you’ve done is defend their position. Ergo you follow THEM

steve-b:

RaisedCatholic:

while Jesus rebuked them for the extra-biblical traditions, He never rebuked them for their OT canon. Rather, He acknowledged them.

To mean I “follow” them (the lost sheep of Israel), that would mean I reject Jesus as my Savior & Lord, which I don’t. I accept Him as both, including accepting the OT canon He affirmed, which the Catholic church rejects. So, while reject the Catholic church, I don’t reject Jesus & the OT canon He espoused to. The later “tradition” you are talking about doesn’t go back to Jesus & the apostles. If it did, the Catholic church would reject the Deuterocanon. But it doesn’t.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Scripture itself, doesn’t give, nor has it ever given, a list of scriptural books.

Again, strawman. You’re not even comprehending what my argument is.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Please explain how you can be certain of this without: 1) using the “writ”, or 2) saying because the authority of the Catholic Church “says” it is. This is what I’m asking, which you have not answered. Simply repeating, “because the church is that pillar” is not an objective answer. Regardless, it can’t be since it embraces books that Jesus and His disciples and St. Paul didn’t.

Again, you’re not answering my question.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I do agree with you on this one. Just dont know why Catholics are the only ones held to this standard on this thread.

Because they are the only ones using that use that argument. Without it, their “authority” folds like a deck of cards, which is circular anyways.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Where exactly did Irenaeus say that the book of Wisdom is in the NT ?

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus.

RaisedCatholic:

And I already mentioned Baruch & the additions to Daniel. This means Irenaeus omitted 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Judith, Tobit from his OT canon - and Wisdom too for that matter .

Since Irenaeus omitted these Deuterocanon books, while only listed the others, it certainly does!

It’s been estimated that Luke was written a minimum of 20 yrs AFTER Paul was executed in Rome. So I ask you, how does Paul call something scripture, that hasn’t even been written yet?

Yet, St. Paul quoted St. Luke & called his writing Scripture. Another reason why relying on “tradition” over the inspired Word of God is problematic. Plus, even the Catholic church affirms he quoted him. So, I don’t know where you are getting this “tradition” that conflicts with inspired Scripture.

it’s clear Protestants don’t understand the difference between “traditions” of man, vs “traditions” taught by the apostles and the Church.

Yes, we do. Based on the NT, man-made “traditions” cannot be confirmed by Jesus & the apostles, which includes extra-biblical “traditions.” Traditions of Jesus & the apostles can be verified by the Word of God, like the OT canon.

Jesus never gave any list of books, in what we call the OT.

If you’re looking for a Table of Contents, no one is making that argument, which demonstrates you aren’t comprehending the argument.

Since this topic of the bible canon, was officially closed 1000+ yrs before Protestantism appeared on the scene, I leave you to your opinions and your spamming.

This topic is about the OLD Testament canon (not the entire Biblical canon), which was closed before the time of Christ, which Protestants rediscovered.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Just because Jesus cites part of one’s Scripture to them does not mean that He condoned their Scripture as the only Scripture.

Elsewhere, when Jesus quoted Jonah 1:17 with the Pharisees, He acknowledged the writing of Jonah. By cited the same verse to the Sadducees He was rejecting the OT canon of the Sadducees, because they rejected Jonah’s writings as a prophetic book, even though He didn’t use this metonym.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I don’t know why quoting something in the New Testament merits anything as to a books canonicity honestly. This happens throughout the Bible with books not considered scripture by Catholics(and besides Enoch , anyone for that matter). By the argument everyone giving to that if a book is canonical if alluded too, our Bibles should be much larger.

This is the argument I’ve made - several times - yet the Catholics on this forum don’t seem to get this.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

It’s been estimated that Luke was written a minimum of 20 yrs AFTER Paul was executed in Rome. So I ask you, how does Paul call something scripture, that hasn’t even been written yet?

“Since it [the gospel of Luke] was written before Acts, and since Acts finishes with a description of Paul’s ministry toward the end of his first captivity in Rome (the year 63), this Gospel can be dated at the latest at the end of 62 or the beginning of 63.” - Catholic Answers

Luke

St. Paul was executed sometime after he finished 2 Timothy, which was around the mid-to-late 60’s. Since the Gospel of St. Luke was written (at the latest) in the early 60’s, how exactly could it be written “a minimum of 20 years AFTER Paul was executed in Rome”??? Not even the Catholic Church agrees with you on this one. I’m afraid you’re on your own on this one.

I’m also tired of the 3 consecutive reply limit messages, I get, just trying to keep up with your spamming. So Yeah, you guessed it, I don’t have time for this.

That’s because you keep making the same 3 consecutive comments & end up arguing in a circle. What makes you think my replies are suddenly going to change? And perhaps it’s not so much you “don’t have time for this,” but that you aren’t willing to acknowledge that all you have to base on your “belief” that the Catholic OT canon is correct is your “tradition” of a 46 book OT canon that only goes back (at the earliest) to the fourth century. And then, only to “some” ECF’s & not even all these books are found in the councils (like Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah which were omitted).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And what you’re not getting is that the OT canon was already established before Jesus was even born & before the church was ever established, which excluded the Deuterocanon. So, the church doesn’t have the authority to “add” to the canon books Jesus didn’t affirm.

Where are you getting that piece of misinformation?

 

[adf417]

Again, you’re not answering my question.

Again, you just don’t LIKE the answer. It doesn’t fit your flawed paradigm.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Because they are the only ones using that use that argument.

yawn!!!
As we should be sense there is only one true church to defend. Should the one true church STOP repeating itself of truths? “Repeating” issue was your assertion.

But you are pushing a strawman RC by not acknowledging your own repeating of things. If you want to have true conversation it would be decent of you to address all points especially sense it was originally your assertion.

Peace!!!

 

[Prodigal1984]

I have no problem with any of the apocrypha. I just am not sure it belongs in the Bible, maybe it does but probably kind of how Anglicans view it. Good for living but not accepting doctrine.
The Maccabees in my opinion have no place in the Bible as the same way other books do. The Maccabees are histories, first and second are related, third is kind of a unique story from fifty years earlier, and fourth is a story that is philosophical on the martyrdom of Eleazor and the seven children from the second book. The Maccabean revolt was not universally praised by Jews in Israel, many actually thought it did further destruction to themselves under Roman occupation. We know this because the Psalms of Solomon which were written around the time are very anti Macabean. The books are political and belong alongside Josephus Antiquities of the Jews or the Jewish War. They are wonderful histories but they have no place in the Bible.

 

[ZMystiCat]

ZMystiCat:

Just because Jesus cites part of one’s Scripture to them does not mean that He condoned their Scripture as the only Scripture.

Elsewhere, when Jesus quoted Jonah 1:17 with the Pharisees, He acknowledged the writing of Jonah. By cited the same verse to the Sadducees He was rejecting the OT canon of the Sadducees, because they rejected Jonah’s writings as a prophetic book, even though He didn’t use this metonym.

This doesn’t even try to address what I said, including the portion you quoted.

 

[JohnR77]

Later nnnn

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

And what you’re not getting is that the OT canon was already established before Jesus was even born & before the church was ever established, which excluded the Deuterocanon. So, the church doesn’t have the authority to “add” to the canon books Jesus didn’t affirm.

Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin stated that the Pharisees & later Protestants shared the EXACT same OT books in their canons. Jesus affirmed the canon of the Pharisees by referring to is as “the Law & the Prophets.” He then stated that the Pharisees “They HAVE (have possession) of Moses & the Prophets (OT canon)” (Luke 16:14-16,29). St. Paul stated he was a Pharisee & also referred to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets.” As a Pharisee, “the Law & the Prophets” (OT canon) would be limited to the books in later Protestant OTs. So, no "mis"information, but from the very words of our Lord & St. Paul.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

As we should be sense there is only one true church to defend. Should the one true church STOP repeating itself of truths? “Repeating” issue was your assertion.

Of course not. The problem is that you haven’t demonstrated - objectively - that the Catholic Church is that “one true church.” Simply “believing” it is, is being subjective, because you believe they are, because you believe they possess the complete OT canon. But from the very words of Jesus, they don’t, since Jesus accepted the OT canon of the Pharisees which excluded the Deuterocanon. These are the very words of our Lord. The fact you don’t “believe” this is irrelevant to the fact He acknowledged it.

But you are pushing a strawman RC by not acknowledging your own repeating of things. If you want to have true conversation it would be decent of you to address all points especially sense it was originally your assertion.

It would be nice to address points that aren’t circular. Let me know when you have some that doesn’t involve bringing up “A” to prove “B” to prove “A.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) ZMystiCat:

Just because Jesus cites part of one’s Scripture to them does not mean that He condoned their Scripture as the only Scripture.

Sure it does. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees AND SADDUCEES, they asked him for a sign. A “sign” in Scripture referred to something from God or from Heaven. The “sign” Jesus gave them was from the OT book of Jonah, which He quoted verbatim. By saying that verse (and book) were a “sign” from Heaven, Jesus was acknowledging that prophetic book as inspired Scripture & part of the OT canon they were to look to, to verify His claim to be the Messiah. The book of Jonah was part of the OT canon of the Pharisees, but NOT the Sadducees. By Jesus telling them both this, He simultaneously proclaimed the Sadducee OT canon was incomplete since they rejected the book of Jonah, while the Pharisees accepted the book of Jonah in their canon. So, yes, I addressed your points.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I have no problem with any of the apocrypha. I just am not sure it belongs in the Bible, maybe it does but probably kind of how Anglicans view it. Good for living but not accepting doctrine.
The Maccabees in my opinion have no place in the Bible as the same way other books do. The Maccabees are histories, first and second are related, third is kind of a unique story from fifty years earlier, and fourth is a story that is philosophical on the martyrdom of Eleazor and the seven children from the second book. The Maccabean revolt was not universally praised by Jews in Israel, many actually thought it did further destruction to themselves under Roman occupation. We know this because the Psalms of Solomon which were written around the time are very anti Macabean. The books are political and belong alongside Josephus Antiquities of the Jews or the Jewish War. They are wonderful histories but they have no place in the Bible.

This is exactly how many early church fathers, St. Jerome & the church during his time, as well as various popes, cardinals, and other early Catholics viewed them.

 

[adf417]

It would be nice to address points that aren’t circular. Let me know when you have some that doesn’t involve bringing up “A” to prove “B” to prove “A.”

You are the only one getting dizzy here RC and it might be because what you think is not actually circular. There is that option.

Peace!!!