D
Dougbro1
Guest
Granted, Protestants who became Catholics would say otherwise. Interesting point nonetheless.Ask any Catholic who became Protestant.
- Status
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
From my experience & what Iâve read & heard from testimonies of Protestants who became Catholic, it was their influence from the ECFs. The problem is that they didnât all agree with each, as Jimmy Akin, pointed out in a Catholic Answers YouTube video, including the contents of the OT. But when you look at the NT, & what Jesus actually says about the OT canon - like from Luke 16:14,29), he affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees, which is the same as Protestants today, which Mr. Akin pointed out in another YouTube video. It is from passages like these in the NT is what has led numerous Catholics to Protestantism.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Even this isnât true historically. It wouldnât be until the 16h century, in response to the Protestant Reformation, that the Catholic Church officially âdefinedâ the canon of Scripture. Even at the previous Ecumenical Council of Florence, Deuteros like Sirach were questioned. And even the earlier fourth century councils didnât agree on all the same books. Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah were missing in ALL of the councils, and Revelation was âremovedâ at Carthage. This is one of the reasons for a second Carthage council in 419, to âaddâ back Revelation, and the fact Revelation was in the Vulgate completed in 405, which also omitted Baruch & the epistle, which werenât âaddedâ into later versions of the Vulgate 400 years later.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Everything you just said is proven false in the video right below your post! You quote real councils, but your facts are false. As the Video says, since 382 when Pope Damasus established the CURRENT canon in the Council of Rome, all councils SINCE, have re-affirmed that canon (including the Council of Trent.) What you seem to not understand is that a discussion does not mean anything. It is the final decision and conclusion of the council that is ALL important. Of course the context and agenda are also important, but I KNOW that you are not interested in anything that deflates your argument.
A
adf417
Guest
And most non-Catholics like to remind us Catholics that these three early councils were not ecumenical as if it would suggest the councils have no authority of the universal church. While this may be true in the strictest sense they hide from the fact that these the 3 councils were not for for nothing. One would wonder what were these 3 councils actually up to and why? Hmmmm!!!
Peace!!!
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I just watched this video the other day on his Facebook page! I also saw noticed that on his actual YouTube channel, there were comments addressing some of the claims he made. And most (if not all) of the comments on his Facebook page made some corrections to some of his claims, like that the NT never actually cites any of the Deuteros as âScriptureâ per se, by using phrases like âit is writtenâ & âHave you not readâ etc. And simply quoting a passage from the Deuteros in the NT does not necessarily equate it with being Scripture, since the NT also cites non-Deutero books too, like 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, etc. There is detailed responses on his YouTube channel, which address a number of things brought up in his video if you want to take a look at it.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
According to Catholic author Brant Pitre ("A Catholic Introduction to the Bible), who has been a guest on Catholic Answers, regarding the Council of Rome, he has a table in his book with a footnote that reads: âDisputed by some, because the list is only found appended to a fifth century document, the Decree of Galasiusâ
Brant Pitre: A Catholic Introduction to the Bible
In this same table, Pitre puts a question mark next to Baruch in the list of OT books under the Council of Rome. He does the same for the Council of Africa (383) & St. Augustine (397). So, this list from the Council of Rome appears to be from a later time & then retroactively imputed back into the council. This is one reason why scholars - both Catholic & Protestant - affirm that Hippo, not Rome, was the first non-ecumenical council from the fourth century to include an OT canon that included most (but not all) of the same books in Catholic OTs today.
And, again, Carthage of 397 did not include Baruch or the epistle of Jeremiah, nor did it include Revelation. BTW, I watched the video. At what point does it dispute this - specifically? It doesnât sound like Dr. Mitchell either knows this, or he does & has decided not to address it.
Also, in a debate in 2004 between James White & Gary Michuta (âWhy Catholic Bibles Are Biggerâ / âThe Case for the Deuterocanonâ), when Dr. White asked Mr. Michuta about why the two books of Esdras which contains additions to Esdras was not in the Council of Trent, Mr. Michutaâs response was sort of evasive, saying that the reason why Trent didnât include the additions to the Esdras books is that âthey voted to pass over in silence.â It begins around the 1 hour, 39 minute mark:
The Great Debate IX: Is The Apocrypha Scripture? (White vs Michuta)
So, this demonstrates, from a Catholic author & apologist of Catholic Church history, that the OT canon in the fourth century councils & the OT canon at the Council of Trent were not synonymous. Plus, the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in A.D. 787 affirmed the earlier fourth century councils, which means it included the additions to Esdras, which was excluded in the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence (1441) & Trent (1546). So, not only do we have non-ecumenical councils contradicting later ecumenical councils, but we also have earlier ecumenical councils contradicting later ones.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Lastly, regarding the Council of Florence questioning books like Sirach. I read it in an article on EWTN, but they seem to have changed their privacy settings. I can show it to you if I can figure out how to access it.
I appreciate the assumption, but thatâs all it is - an assumption. Please do not assume what my intentions are, especially when I have provided you with citations from reputable Catholic sources, like Catholic Answers, EWTN, etc.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Pronouncing a Biblical canon, in order to rule out non-canonical books, was merely âoneâ purpose for these councils. But as Iâve demonstrated, they were not consistently âuniversalâ (ie: âcatholicâ) in their lists, nor were they consistent with later ecumenical councils, like Florence & Trent (see my previous response). So, itâs not merely that the fourth century African councils were not ecumenical, they didnât even agree completely with each other, let alone the latter ecumenical councils.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) I will be out of town celebrating my wifeâs and my anniversary. I like to âunplugâ so I may not get to responses until I get back. In the meantime, I broke down and got the book! Here is a photo of it!
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
Blessing on your anniversary! I pray all marriages, including yours, are strengthened in Christ Jesus.
Peace!!!
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Itâs pretty simple. Protestant Bibles use smaller typeface because Protestants are allowed to use reading glasses. They can fit more words on a page.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
So, looking at Mr. Marshallâs FB page there are only 27 comments, most positive. There are some negative comments by about 2 people and most of those comments were by someone who said he just published a book titled: Why Protestant Bibles are Smaller..
On the Youtube Channel again mosts comments are postive, 1.7K likes and 28 dislikes. I did not see too many arguments of correction.
I see you were raised Catholic and if I not mistaken now protestant. Iâve been there, done that. I am a revert. After a while as a protestant you realize that when you start questioning what books have been in the Bible for 1500 years of Christianity, whether or not the right books are there, you will find yourself questioning the Bible altogether. UnlessâŚ
You realize the Bible didnât just drop out of the sky. Jesus did not say He came to give us a book, but a Church. It is the Church He gave authority. It is the Church that was given to us first. When you realize that authority was given to the Church, you can trust the Bible and everything it says because you know the Holy Spirit led the Church in choosing the exact books God wanted in the Canon. No more need to rebel. Come completely to Christ and put your trust in Him and the Church He gave us.
Also, most protestant Bibles are larger in size because they have a whole lot more notes and study guides. These are needed because they do not have a Church to go to when in disagreement with each other, so they put their arguments in their Bibles.
Last edited:
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
First I would congratulate you on having such an excellent resource as John Bergsma/Brant Pitre book at your disposal. It is absolutely excellent in REFUTING all of YOUR false claims!
If you would just READ the Text, instead of skimming the Tables, you would realize how wrong you have been. The books you say are âquestionedâ are not. They are simply included within other books, and not considered books on their own; viz: Jeremiah, Lamentations and Baruch were ALL part of Jeremiah. Sometimes Councils or Church Fathers make a POINT of saying that Baruch or Lamentations (or what have you) were absolutely included in the Catholic Christian Canon. The authors (Bersma/Pitre) go to GREAT PAINS with their tables to PROVE that since the council of Rome and other contemporary councils the Catholic Christian Canon has not changed ONE IOTA! Not during Florence or Trent etc. or any other council as Protestants like to pretend.
As I said way back when; For a Thousand Years, the canon was unquestioned and accepted by all of Catholic Christendom, until Martin Luther decided that the issue was never settled to HIS satisfaction (mainly because of his heretical beliefs and teachings.)
But I urge you to REALLY read Bergsma/Pitreâs book, if you GENUINELY care about the Canon and Scripture in general. They are former Protestants, and Doctors of Divinity and Scripture, teaching at the University Level. You wonât find a better source of FACTUAL Catholic Christian history and teachings.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Thank you! We just got back from our anniversary get-away. Now, I can get back to addressing some of the posts while we were gone.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
LOL! Thatâs funny. But I think the topic is a bit more technical than a whimsical statement. But thanks for sharing.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
While I was on vacation, I took the book mentioned in the OT with me, & I got a chance to read quite a bit of it. The argument that the books in the Catholic OT âhave been in the Bible for 1500 years of Christianityâ is a grave assumption that cannot be backed up by history, particularly from the words of Jesus. For one, He never used terms to describe OT books, like âas it is written,â âhave you not read?,â âthe Scriptures sayâ to describe any books from the Deuterocanon. He, as well as the NT writers, only used these terms (and others like it) to describe books from the Hebrew Bible that are found in Protestant OTs today.
The book doesnât claim this (âthe Bible just dropped out of the skyâ). It also acknowledges that Jesus built a Church, but the Holy Spirit also âbreathedâ Scripture through men âmovedâ by the Holy Spirit from God. This began first with the nation of Israel - not the Church, which came centuries later. And although not all Jews believed in the exact same books which belonged in the OT canon, Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees, which predated the Church.
And the only reason we know about the concept of âthe Churchâ is from the pages of inspired Scripture in the NEW Testament, ie: the Bible. IOW, we need an inerrant inspired source which we can be assured of which originated from God outside of mankind & human institution. Otherwise, we are simply relying on a religious institution, which âclaimsâ itâs the âchurchâ Jesus was talking about in Scripture. But by doing that, you are using a text that hasnât yet been determined yet is âGod-breathedâ to make a case for the âChurchâ to then acknowledge this same text is God-breathed. Do you see how this is a circular argument? You are using âAâ (Scripture) to affirm âBâ (the Church) to affirm âAâ (Scripture). IOW, while historically the Church predated the actual written words of Scripture, Scripture was inspired the moment it was penned - both the OT & NT. So, we need inspired Scripture FIRST to tell us that Jesus built a Church, not the Church to tell us what Scripture is, which then tells us that Jesus built a Church.
[cont.]
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
[cont]
By âsmaller,â the book is not referring to the study notes, but the actual books included in the OT canon. The fact there is âdisagreementâ between various Protestant denominations is irrelevant, since they all agree on the exact same OT canon. The book also points out that even Doctors of the Church, including Popes, Cardinals, & other early church fathers (including later Catholics during the Reformation) disagreed with each other on what books belonged in the OT canon. But since Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, & virtually all Christian traditions agree on the New Testament canon, then what does this inspired canon reveal about the Old Testament canon? And the book gives compelling arguments from the authority of Jesus, St. Paul, and the other NT writers that the OT canon in Jesusâ day was limited to the OT canon of the Pharisees, which Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) stated was the same as Protestant OTs today.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I did more than âskimâ the Tables in the Pitre book. The reason there were question marks after Baruch in the Tables is because while many ECFs âbelievedâ Baruch & the epistle were part of the book of Jeremiah (like Lamentations) was:
- this was based on the false assumption of many (particularly in the West) that they were âoriginallyâ part of the book of Jeremiah;
- because many ECFs had âattachedâ Baruch & the epistle to Jeremiah for this very reason (again, mostly in the West); and
- it was âbelievedâ that Baruch & the epistle were originally part of the Hebrew Bible, because they show up in later versions of the Septuagint.
- Status