Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

[mercygate]

Yes. Like veneration of the Bible has led to sola scriptura.

“or of anything on the earth”

Certainly the Isrealites saw what was on the earth.
It is mans tendancy to cling to idols. That is much of the OT is about.

and Christ brought the NT.

I have. I went from Protestantism and embraced Orthodoxy.Tweaking your point here. The commandment forbids images of “any THING” in heaven and earth. The Apostolic Churches do not use images of “things.” Not even animals. No golden calves. Images used in Christian devotion are ALL by extension images of Christ Himself insofar as every saint has lived the Christ-life and witnessed Christ to the world. And of course, they images are not worshiped. They are not “made to ourselves” AS Gods.

 

[mercygate]

Paul instruct the Romans and Peter too was in Rome. The Catholic Church does not teach false doctrine. It’s the Protestants who came up with new doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone, which no Early Christians in the first Century, and centuries after that.

I dunno, them Catholics must be pretty doggone dumb if they keep Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in their Bible. I mean, any fool can plainly see that that Peter was nobody. Right?

 

[mercygate]

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” Romans 9:6

Written by a rabbinic Jew.

[SIGN]yup[/SIGN]

 

[TriuneUnity]

Did Luther consider them inspired? If no, by what authority did he declare them not inspired?

He did not consider them to be inspired. As a corporate church, Lutheranism does not hold its view of the DC books based solely on Luther’s view.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The earliest known Marian prayer is “sub tuum praesidium” dating from an Egyptian liturgy in 250 A.D. Theotokos – Mother of God – was declared in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus.

ALL mainline Protestant denominations affirm the doctrine that Mary is “Mother of God.” This is not a point on which Protestants and Catholics divide – except for the johnny-come-latelies who think Christianity began with the printing of the New Testament they now hold in their hands.

Yes. We would consider it an article of faith. To deny Mary is the Mother of God is to hold a heretical opinion on the two natures of Christ.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, did Luther translate Rom. 3:28 to fit his personal theology that we are saved by faith alone and that Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church were unnecessary? If so, by what authority did he do this?

I am sure he translated Rom. 3:28 according to his theological presuppositions. However, one does not need to translate it that way in order for it to say the same thing. Remember that Luther developed and articulated the doctrine according to how the Latin Vulgate translated the passage. His own translation came several years after he had already been teaching sola fide.

Since I, nor most, Lutherans in the U.S., can read German, we can argue the same points Luther did using the English translations, which do not say faith alone.

I am not sure what you mean by Tradition or the Magisterium as it relates to Rom. 3:28.

 

[PerryJ]

I am sure he translated Rom. 3:28 according to his theological presuppositions. However, one does not need to translate it that way in order for it to say the same thing. Remember that Luther developed and articulated the doctrine according to how the Latin Vulgate translated the passage. His own translation came several years after he had already been teaching sola fide.

Since I, nor most, Lutherans in the U.S., can read German, we can argue the same points Luther did using the English translations, which do not say faith alone.

I am not sure what you mean by Tradition or the Magisterium as it relates to Rom. 3:28.

I posted this the other day of another thread. As it pertains to this post I am reposting. Both books that I will present quotes from are not pro-Catholic books. They clearly judge the actions of people within the Catholic faith and show their short comings. Both books are very objective.

Luther’s actions in his life were based upon fear and his own inadequacies. He joined the Church when a violent thunderstorm struck while he was in the forest. To save himself he pledged to St. Anne that he would become a monk. This is important as he did not choose to be a monk, or feel a calling. Note below his actions for his theology on faith “alone” are based upon fear again. Note also that he comes to this realization by juxtaposing part of Romans 1:17. The basis of Protestant reformation as can be seen below is based upon him changing the Bible to meet his fears. The thought that he was a great theologian that reinterpreted the scriptures to free man is not true. It was his feeling of internal fear and inadequacies that built the theology of the reformation.

The concise History of the Catholic Church Page 210: As he (Luther) continued with his study of theology, he fell prey to moods of general depression; he suffered terrible trials of anguish of spirit, with sudden spasms of terror and despair gripping his heart, a torment so shattering, he said, that had it lasted even the tenth part of an hour, his bones would have crumbled into ashes. Deeply conscious of his sinfulness and guilt, he felt that any moment he might be struck down by the living God and cast into Hell. Craving certainty, he confessed frequently, even daily fasted and prayed; but he found little relief. And then in the extremes of his agony he even cried out his hatred of God, which in turn exacerbated his feelings of guilt. “For I hoped I might find peace of conscience with fasts, prayer, vigils with which I miserably afflicted my body, but the more I sweated it out like this, the less peace and tranquility I knew,” he wrote … “The crisis was resolved…when I juxtaposed the phrase “justice of God” with “the just man shall live by faith’ in Romans 1:17. It was the starting point and remained the key to his distinctive theology and as such the basis of all subsequent reformation theology. It is clear that in essentials this theology was completed before the beginning of his great struggle in 1517”.

1517 was the time when he became aware of and starting to attack the Churches use of indulgences.

The Reformation a History; Diarmaid MacCullcoh Page 116: “After all his frequent anxious visits to the confessional to seek forgiveness for his sins, he still felt righteous God’s fury against his sin. Reminiscing later, he said that he had come to hate this God who had given laws in the Old Testament that could not be kept. The answer was to discover that God put aside his wrath as judge for human beings whom he chose as his elect. They received a gift of faith that had nothing to do with their own sinful actions. It was entirely in the will of God to grant this gift…Luther clung to this sense of release through his later career, when the powers of the Church and commonwealth, and worse still the contradictions of his theology within his own mind.

Luther was not a great martyr or theologian. He was just a man that misunderstood the doctrine of faith and works and felt inadequate and his original thought process or inspiration was in fact reading part of the bible backwards. Does this sound inspired?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually the Old Testament itself is Catholic book. At the very latest, it was canonized by the 4th century. The Tanka, the Jewish Scriptures, was not fixed until the 7th century.

I agree totally what I was speaking of is the individual books of the Old testament.

 

[TriuneUnity]

yes, a few more, and the Ethiopians more still (they are the only ones with the Book of Enoch that the Epistle of Jude quotes). We call them . We call them Anagignoskomena, “what is read,” and have a slightly different take on the canon than either Protestants or Trent.

What differences, Isa? I’d be fascinated to know this. We, too, have a different take on the canon than most Protestants and Catholics (though we always get lumped in the generic Protestant groups. Bleah).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Saint Jerome submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church and accepted them as inspired, thus including them in his translations. I’d say God gave him the grace and virtue of humility during that time.

He never personally accepted them as inspired. He included them in the translation because that is what the Church requested of him.

Luther, too, didnt accept them as inspired but included them in his translation because he did not consider his own opinion to be dogmatic and because the Church always included them with the rest of the writings.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I posted this the other day of another thread. As it pertains to this post I am reposting. Both books that I will present quotes from are not pro-Catholic books. They clearly judge the actions of people within the Catholic faith and show their short comings. Both books are very objective.

Luther’s actions in his life were based upon fear and his own inadequacies. He joined the Church when a violent thunderstorm struck while he was in the forest. To save himself he pledged to St. Anne that he would become a monk. This is important as he did not choose to be a monk, or feel a calling. Note below his actions for his theology on faith “alone” are based upon fear again. Note also that he comes to this realization by juxtaposing part of Romans 1:17. The basis of Protestant reformation as can be seen below is based upon him changing the Bible to meet his fears. The thought that he was a great theologian that reinterpreted the scriptures to free man is not true. It was his feeling of internal fear and inadequacies that built the theology of the reformation.

The concise History of the Catholic Church Page 210: As he (Luther) continued with his study of theology, he fell prey to moods of general depression; he suffered terrible trials of anguish of spirit, with sudden spasms of terror and despair gripping his heart, a torment so shattering, he said, that had it lasted even the tenth part of an hour, his bones would have crumbled into ashes. Deeply conscious of his sinfulness and guilt, he felt that any moment he might be struck down by the living God and cast into Hell. Craving certainty, he confessed frequently, even daily fasted and prayed; but he found little relief. And then in the extremes of his agony he even cried out his hatred of God, which in turn exacerbated his feelings of guilt. “For I hoped I might find peace of conscience with fasts, prayer, vigils with which I miserably afflicted my body, but the more I sweated it out like this, the less peace and tranquility I knew,” he wrote … “The crisis was resolved…when I juxtaposed the phrase “justice of God” with “the just man shall live by faith’ in Romans 1:17. It was the starting point and remained the key to his distinctive theology and as such the basis of all subsequent reformation theology. It is clear that in essentials this theology was completed before the beginning of his great struggle in 1517”.

1517 was the time when he became aware of and starting to attack the Churches use of indulgences.

The Reformation a History; Diarmaid MacCullcoh Page 116: “After all his frequent anxious visits to the confessional to seek forgiveness for his sins, he still felt righteous God’s fury against his sin. Reminiscing later, he said that he had come to hate this God who had given laws in the Old Testament that could not be kept. The answer was to discover that God put aside his wrath as judge for human beings whom he chose as his elect. They received a gift of faith that had nothing to do with their own sinful actions. It was entirely in the will of God to grant this gift…Luther clung to this sense of release through his later career, when the powers of the Church and commonwealth, and worse still the contradictions of his theology within his own mind.

Luther was not a great martyr or theologian. He was just a man that misunderstood the doctrine of faith and works and felt inadequate and his original thought process or inspiration was in fact reading part of the bible backwards. Does this sound inspired?

Care to psychoanlyze St. Augustine?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What differences, Isa? I’d be fascinated to know this. We, too, have a different take on the canon than most Protestants and Catholics (though we always get lumped in the generic Protestant groups. Bleah).

We have a few more books: 4 Maccabbees for one (an interesting book because it dates perhaps within the Lord’s lifetime on earth, and its theology is VERY Christian: the argument that the Abrahm, Isaac and Jacob live to/in God is like the Lord’s argument to the Sadduccees), Psalm 151 (a version of which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and others. All of them except 4 Maccabbees and II Esdras are in the new “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World,” a translation of the Septuagint (LXX).

The “reabable” part deals with how the Church uses them, especially liturgically. That is how they were canonized.

The Gospels are bound together in a book which has an icon of the Crucifixion on the one side and the Resurrection on the other (the reason why that is important is because the liturgical day begins at sunset, as in Genesis. During Vespers for the Sunday Vigil, i.e. Saturday night (the origin of Saturday mass), the priest processes in with the Gospel with the Crucifixion showing, as we sing “O Glandsome Light” (a twilight hymn so old that St. Basil (4th cent.) said the author had been long lost. He then turns it to show the Resurrection, to show that the Resurrection has dawned on us an Sunday, the Lord’s Day, has begun, and enthrones it on the altar). The Order is not by books, but by the proscribed sections by the Lectionary. It contains only the Gospel readings, to show the sufficency of Christ, and as an icon of His teaching ministery. Some Orthodox will only venerate the Gospels and not the rest of the Bible (the Gospels are venerated during Matins, the morning prayer).

The Epistles are in the Apostolos, and again the readings are in the order of the Lectionnary, not the books. It includes Acts, which is read all through out Pascha time, because the Church is Body of Christ in history and in this world. btw, historically the Epistle of Clemant was almost canonized because the Church of Corinth, to whom he sent it, was read every year. The missing epistles of St. Paul to that same Church are missing because that Church never read them at Divine Liturgy.

The Book of Revelation is read only on one day of the year, Great and Holy Saturday, in the Paschal Virgil before the icon of Christ entombed (the epitaphion), which is the Vigil of this Age waiting for the Age to come. It canonizes, however, the basis of the liturgical forms (if you are Orthodox, you realize that St. John is at Divine Liturgy when he sees his vision, and then sees worship in heaven, the prototype. The Church actively discourages reading Revelation, as it belongs to the age to come, and too much speculation leads to bad results (look at the JW).

The OT testiment is read a lot during Great Lent, as a preparation for Pascha, just like the OT was the preparation for the NT. That is in the Lenten Triodion, which includes the services for the weeks of Preparation for Lent up to and including Great and Holy Saturday. For that reason also, the readings During the Vesperal Liturgy of Pascha (Saturday evening, Sunday Matins and Midnight DL is main Paschal Service), which is the longest of the year (and the only time we read the hymn of St. James, Christ’s Brother “Let all mortal flesh keep silent”) there is a series of readings for Salvation History, Genesis, Exodus, Joshuah, Kings, Isaiah, Jerimiah, Daniel, (Ezekiel (the Valley of the Dry Bones) is read on Great and Holy Friday before the entombed Christ) Jonah, etc. The major feasts days have OT readings at their Vigils (e.g. feasts of the Virgin Mary, or Theotokos, have various readings on the Temple).

The Psalter is in one book because they are read at every service (the hours consist of psalms interspersed with prayers), cf. the number of prophecies from it in the NT. It used to be the rule that anyone who was to recieve orders in the Church had to memorize the entire psalter first.

Then there are books which include the “DC.” Sirach is not read in the DL, but it was an is used a lot by the Church for catechisis (was so by the rabbis too, becasue they quote and comment on it in the Talmud, but evidently its popularity in the Church was its downfall in the Synagogue. The Hebrew text was rediscovered a century ago). So too Maccabbees etc, they were used for edification, which is akin to what I remember Martin Luther saying about them.

Then there are works, like the Proto-evangelion of James which has influenced Church tradition (it is the basis of the life of the Theotokos and her feastday before the Annuciation), but has never been read in Church, and at one point was actually forbidden to be read in Church services but only privately. Then there are books read in Divine Liturgy but which have never been seen as part of the Canon, e.g. the Synaxarion, which contains lives of the saints, commentary on the feastdays of Christ, etc.

So for one thing, until recently it was not usual to have the whole Bible between two covers, as it was split up according to the Church’s uses. Hence not a big deal what was between the two covers of the Bible as the Puritans and Evangelicals would have us believe. Hence the issue of “canon” as Protestants and the Vatican argue, isn’t such a burning issue for us.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Then there are works, like the Proto-evangelion of James which has influenced Church tradition (it is the basis of the life of the Theotokos and her feastday before the Annuciation), but has never been read in Church, and at one point was actually forbidden to be read in Church services but only privately. Then there are books read in Divine Liturgy but which have never been seen as part of the Canon, e.g. the Synaxarion, which contains lives of the saints, commentary on the feastdays of Christ, etc.

So for one thing, until recently it was not usual to have the whole Bible between two covers, as it was split up according to the Church’s uses. Hence not a big deal what was between the two covers of the Bible as the Puritans and Evangelicals would have us believe. Hence the issue of “canon” as Protestants and the Vatican argue, isn’t such a burning issue for us.

Our own take on the canon of Scripture (from a confessional Lutheran standpoint). Firstly, we do not use the term “canon” as a master list of books per se. We use it to mean “rule” or “standard”. The canon is defined by its use. So, for example, the book of James functions differently within the life of the Church than does, say, the Gospel of Mark.

There are traditionally four different categories of books, defined by their use within the Church.

1. The 39 Hebrew books of the Old Testament. These we do not doubt or fail to draw doctrine from. The early Church did not dispute them, and Jesus directly affirmed them and their use as a standard for doctrines such as the nature of God, His attributes, etc. These are also used in the Church to affirm the nature of the New Testament and the life of Christ based on the Messianic prophecies and foreshadowings.
2. The deuterocanonical Greek books of the Old Testament. We do not draw on these for doctrine. Their use by Christ and the apostles, if at all, is treated much differently. While there are some allusions to themes that the DC contains in the NT, they are never directly quoted, though all 39 Hebrew books are. They can be used to confirm the teachings of the 39 books where the two coincide and provide insightful analysis of the intertestamental period. As to the inspiration by the Spirit of these texts as Scripture, there are some that are better candidates than others. I and II Maccabees are more likely than is Tobit. Their rule for use is inclusion in the liturgy, and hymnody of the Church as their is much to draw from that is Christ-centered. A good argument for their inclusion: is found in 2Timothy 3:15-16. Here Paul obviously thinks he can simply refer to “Scripture” without confusing his reader. But what would that first reader, Timothy, have understood by the term? Or (amounting to the same thing) what would Paul have automatically assumed Timothy would understand, since he’s making an important point about “all Scripture” being inspired, or God-breathed? Timothy was a Greek-speaking Jew, his mother being Jewish and his father being Greek. In other words, he was prior to the Gospel a Hellenistic Jew. In all likelihood, therefore, the Scriptures he would have been familiar with (and Paul would have known this) would have been the Septuagint which contained the so-called “apocrypha.” It’s also important to note that Luther always referred to them as “scripture” and the Augsburg Confession quotes from them several times as “scripture” when arguing for a doctrinal point.
3. 20 homologoumena books of the NT (the 4 gospels, Acts, the 13 Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John). The Church did not doubt their apostolic source. Like the 39 Hebrew books, there is no question about their inspiration, thus, doctrine can be drawn directly from them, as well as liturgical usage.
4. The 7 antilegomena books of the NT (James, Jude, Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation). Lutherans argue that the 7 antilegomena books of the NT are almost certainly in the Canon, but there were doubts in the ancient Church about their apostolic origin. What this means is that doctrine should be developed from the 39 Hebrew books of the OT and 20 homologoumena books of the NT. For example, this would mean developing doctrine from Paul and not from James. Nor would we interpret Matthew 25 by using Revelation, rather, we would interpret Revelation in light of Matthew 25.

 

[chosen_people]

Not a rabbinic Jew.

And the basis of rabbinbic Judaism didn’t appearl until AFTER the Christian Bible (including NT) was written.

The basis for Rabbinic Judaism is the Torah both in its narrow and wider sense.

Even more interesting is your claim that there were no Pharisee’s in the New Testament.

 

[chosen_people]

Actually the Old Testament itself is Catholic book. At the very latest, it was canonized by the 4th century. The Tanka, the Jewish Scriptures, was not fixed until the 7th century.

The dates notwithstanding, according to this logic the United States only came into existence in 1959 with the addition of two new states.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The basis for Rabbinic Judaism is the Torah both in its narrow and wider sense.

Even more interesting is your claim that there were no Pharisee’s in the New Testament.

Didn’t say there weren’t.

Just said your Talmud was written after the NT.

Amazing, as the basis for the Church is the Pentatuch, both in its narrow and wider sense.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The dates notwithstanding, according to this logic the United States only came into existence in 1959 with the addition of two new states.

I’m just denying that it came into existence in 1492. Or even 1586. 1776, 1789 or even 1865 are better candidates.

 

[PerryJ]

The Bible is a Catholic book because the Church defined the Bible. The Church existed before the Bible. Jesus was crucified AD 33 the first New Testament book was written around AD 45. The Bible has at least eight different writers. The Church was being persecuted and the Bible was not collected for over 300 years. One gospel existed here, another there. The Church Fathers in the first three centuries did provide list of books; however, none of them correspond to the collection agreed to by the Church. (Interesting how Sola Sciptura could have existed for 300 years without a Bible.)

In many churches we had books that were not inspired. We know of about 50 gospels that existed, 22 books of acts and a smaller number of epistles. Some books in dispute such Epistle of Jude, Second Epistle of St. Peter, Second and Third of John, Epistle of Hebrew and the Apocalypse of John were included. Some books that were included in various list were rejected by the Catholic Church. These include “Shepherd” of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Doctrine of Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel According to Hebrews, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans and Epistle of Clement.

The Reformation accepted the New Testament books as given to them. The reformation only threw out Old Testament books that did not meet their ideology. They did not refute them based upon any fact other than they did not meet their personal thoughts. They threw out Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastus (Sirach), First and Second MacCabees, seven chapters of Esther, sixty six verse of the third chapter of Daniel and chapters thirteen and fourteen of Daniel. Again because they did not meet their personal interpetation.

The Catholic Church was also the keeper of the Bible. Prior to the Reformation the Catholic Church published the Bible in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian. Catholic monks manually wrote and kept the Bible in existence for over 1,200 years. It took a monk over one year to manually write the over 35,000 verses that exist in the Bible.

The Catholic Church reviewed all of the existing texts in the first centuries, identified the books that were inspired, published the Bible and interpreted the Bible for 1,200 years. It is a Catholic book. I do not understand how Protestant believes that it is their book to apply personal inspirations to as they had nothing to do with its creation. I understand for individuals that have not done any research as they just have been poorly informed. What I don’t understand is that anyone that has gone back and read the history of the Bible it is clear it is a Catholic book that the Catholic Church defined, published and interpreted.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Bible is a Catholic book because the Church defined the Bible. The Church existed before the Bible. Jesus was crucified AD 33 the first New Testament book was written around AD 45. The Bible has at least eight different writers. The Church was being persecuted and the Bible was not collected for over 300 years. One gospel existed here, another there. The Church Fathers in the first three centuries did provide list of books; however, none of them correspond to the collection agreed to by the Church. (Interesting how Sola Sciptura could have existed for 300 years without a Bible.)

In many churches we had books that were not inspired. We know of about 50 gospels that existed, 22 books of acts and a smaller number of epistles. Some books in dispute such Epistle of Jude, Second Epistle of St. Peter, Second and Third of John, Epistle of Hebrew and the Apocalypse of John were included. Some books that were included in various list were rejected by the Catholic Church. These include “Shepherd” of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Doctrine of Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel According to Hebrews, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans and Epistle of Clement.

The Reformation accepted the New Testament books as given to them. The reformation only threw out Old Testament books that did not meet their ideology. They did not refute them based upon any fact other than they did not meet their personal thoughts. They threw out Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastus (Sirach), First and Second MacCabees, seven chapters of Esther, sixty six verse of the third chapter of Daniel and chapters thirteen and fourteen of Daniel. Again because they did not meet their personal interpetation.

The Catholic Church was also the keeper of the Bible. Prior to the Reformation the Catholic Church published the Bible in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian. Catholic monks manually wrote and kept the Bible in existence for over 1,200 years. It took a monk over one year to manually write the over 35,000 verses that exist in the Bible.

The Catholic Church reviewed all of the existing texts in the first centuries, identified the books that were inspired, published the Bible and interpreted the Bible for 1,200 years. It is a Catholic book. I do not understand how Protestant believes that it is their book to apply personal inspirations to as they had nothing to do with its creation. I understand for individuals that have not done any research as they just have been poorly informed. What I don’t understand is that anyone that has gone back and read the history of the Bible it is clear it is a Catholic book that the Catholic Church defined, published and interpreted.

because they been tought that Catholics are not christians adn when they come to the table, they have one thing in mind to inform us of the SS. they dont come to listen, they come to preach to us.

 

[PerryJ]

1. The deuterocanonical Greek books of the Old Testament. We do not draw on these for doctrine. Their use by Christ and the apostles, if at all, is treated much differently. While there are some allusions to themes that the DC contains in the NT, they are never directly quoted, though all 39 Hebrew books are.

This stament is misleading. First if you use this theory you would have to throw out the books of Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum Esther, The Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes as none of these receive even one single New Testament citation.

Plus the early Protestant Bibles not only publish the DC with them they had cross references in them to these books. The early King James Bible actually had 102 cross references between the DC and the Old Testament. Later additions of the King James removed the references. Here is a short list of several cross references: Mathew 6:14-15 and Sirach 7:14, Mathew 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16, Luke 6:31 and Tobit 4:15, Luke 14:13 and Tobit 4:7, John 10:22 - 1 MacCabees 4:59, Romans 9:20-22 and Wisdom 12:12, 15:7, 12:20, Romans 11:34 - Wisdom 9:13, 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Sirach 35:9, Hebrew 1:3 and Wisdom 7;26, Hewbrew 11:35 and 2 MacCabees 7:7. All of these cross references existed in early Protestant Bibles. This test created by later Protestants does not work in any sense and was not even presented by the original Reformers as they knew it was incorrect.