Catholi Vs. Protestant Bibles

[Catholic Crusader]

Thats weak. Anybody can edit Wiki.

Maybe I'll log on and fix it

 

[Hezekiah]

A couple more links that may be interesting to the OP.

Holman Bible Dictionary: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T379
Easton's Bible Dictionary definition: http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/a/apocrypha.htm

 

[Paidion]

The Deuterocanonicals were in the scriptures that the apostles used. That is a FACT.

If they were in the scriptures that the apostles used, there should be a number of quotes from them in the New Testament. But nope. Not one. Only quotes from the Canonicals, except Jude's quotation from the Book of Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses. But those books are not part of the "Deuterocanonicals".

They were only declared non-canonical by the Rabbinical council of Jamnia LONG AFTER Christs death and resurrection. Christians follow Christ and His apostles, not the Rabbis.

How about the various early catholics who did not include any of then in their lists? This implies rejection. Other early catholics included some of them but not others. Check out this link:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon4.html

Another interesting fact. If the apostles used them, why did the Catholics at the council of Trent in 1546 reject First and Second Esdras as well as the Prayer of Manasseh?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The Deuterocanonicals were in the scriptures that the apostles used. That is a FACT.

If they were in the scriptures that the apostles used, there should be a number of quotes from them in the New Testament. But nope. Not one....

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

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

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

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.
Here's an excerpt from a magazine article called "5 Myths about 7 Books" by Mark Shea
source link: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues ... tory2.html

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

 

[Paidion]

Similarities in phraseology and details of some stories, plus supposed "allusions" is a far cry from quoting.

I stand by my statement that nowhere do the New Testament writers quote from the "deuterocanonical" writings. You have not given a single example of a direct quote.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Similarities in phraseology and details of some stories, plus supposed "allusions" is a far cry from quoting.

I stand by my statement that nowhere do the New Testament writers quote from the "deuterocanonical" writings. You have not given a single example of a direct quote.

And you cannot prove that the Deuterocanonicals are not inspired. Every book in your bible was vetted by the same church, so you are cherrypicking.

 

[francisdesales]

Similarities in phraseology and details of some stories, plus supposed "allusions" is a far cry from quoting.

I stand by my statement that nowhere do the New Testament writers quote from the "deuterocanonical" writings. You have not given a single example of a direct quote.

So where is this "rule" that something must be quoted by proto-canonical Scriptures for a deutro-canonical to be valid? That would rule out the entire NT series after the Pastorals with the exception of 1 John and 1 Peter... Could you be consistent at least?

In addition, to show the sadness of this "rule", the NT does not cite a number of OT proto-canonicals, either, such as Nehemiah or Chronicles. Does that mean we need to get rid of them, as well??? Please.

As Origen stated regarding the Jews, the classical Reformers were no different in removing part of the Word of God, as the "elders" did not care for what was said by God through these Scriptures. That's the bottom line. Luther didn't care for Maccabees or Tobit, so he looked for an excuse to just get rid of them.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

First, you need to consider his own background behind the reasoning of his insistence. He interpreted the Hebrew into the Latin in writing the "Vulgate". Of course he was biased that the Word of God could only be written in Hebrew to the Jews. However, his reasoning was faulty,

Thank you for proving my point. That is, there has be a debate on these texts long before the Reformation. I might also point out that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox faiths include texts in their canon excluded by the RCC.

Brother, if you consider that ANY book that was debated over as grounds for removal, you better start ripping the Bible to pieces, because large chunks of it were debated amongst the Church - that is why some books are CALLED "Deuterocanonical" in the first place!!!

Hebrews. Get rid of it.
James. Luther would love tossing it into the river.
2 John, 3 John. Get rid of it.
Jude. Who wrote it? Get rid of it.
2 Peter. Peter didn't write it. Get rid of it.
Revelation. The Greek Orthodox STILL say not one word of it during the Divine Liturgy.
Esther. Oh, the word God is never mentioned in the Hebrew version. Even the Jews didn't care for it, or for Ecclesiastes...

Shall we continue?

How about Matthew. Mark. John. Get rid of them. Marcion didn't approve of them.
Nor the ENTIRE OT... Tear it up.

Hey, the Jesus Seminar got rid of lots of Luke, the last Gospel that your rule allows us to keep.

Oh, and the Jews, the people of God, did not approve of the entire NT.

Thus, we now have no Word of God anymore, because people have argued over every single book being in the Bible to begin with...

We'll just presume that your way is not the right way.

Regards

 

[Hezekiah]

Brother, if you consider that ANY book that was debated over as grounds for removal

Hyperbole, therefore..yawn. We both know the unique reasons behind the debate over the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. I have a Russian Orthodox friend who thinks it is scandalous that the RCC removed a few books contained in the Septuagint from the Bible. So, I suppose it depends on where we draw the line.

Either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I tried to give both sides to the original poster above so that they can do their own research.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, as usual, and as with all other issues, the debate boils down to one of "authority". All these debates always do. And since the RC Forum is locked down we cannot get to the nuts and bolts of this debate. Suffice to say that I am convinced that the bishops in union with the pope are the legitinate authority of the Church on earth, excercising the authority Christ gave to the apostles as handed down through their true successors, and their decisions on such matters are binding on all Christians. Period. I know you others disagree. So I guess thats the end of the debate.. ..for me at least

 

[francisdesales]

Hyperbole, therefore..yawn.

I'm sorry if the logical conclusion of your argument causes you to yawn. You should have thought of that before presenting the "disagreement is cause for removal" line of thought...

We both know the unique reasons behind the debate over the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha.

Yes, I have detailed the underlying reason already...

I have a Russian Orthodox friend who thinks it is scandalous that the RCC removed a few books contained in the Septuagint from the Bible. So, I suppose it depends on where we draw the line.

Ask your Orthodox friend if he is the official mouthpiece for all of Orthodoxy. The fact remains that the universal Church has determined through ecumenical council to establish without error the contents of the bible (Trent). People can complain that they were never consulted, but we know when the Church speaks in such a capacity, it is without error.

Either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I tried to give both sides to the original poster above so that they can do their own research.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree and my arguments have sufficiently answered you.

Regards

 

[Hezekiah]

Ask your Orthodox friend if he is the official mouthpiece for all of Orthodoxy. The fact remains that the universal Church has determined through ecumenical council to establish without error the contents of the bible (Trent). People can complain that they were never consulted, but we know when the Church speaks in such a capacity, it is without error.

The split between East and West and the Reformation both occurred before Trent, so neither the Orthodox nor Protestant faiths have any concern for such Popish machinations.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree and my arguments have sufficiently answered you.

Arrogance is unbecoming. As far as I am concerned, this conversation is over.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Popish machinations.....

The word "popish" is a documented insult, already noted by the Moderators. Next time, its use will be reported.

Arrogance is unbecoming

As are insults.

 

[Hezekiah]

The word "popish" is a documented insult, already noted by the Moderators. Next time, its use will be reported.

A very archaic one perhaps. No offense intended and the rule noted. Out of curiousity, where is this posted? I don't see a reference in the rules.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

4 - No Trolling:

You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response.........

pop·ish (popish)
adj. Offensive
Of or relating to the popes or the Roman Catholic Church.

popish·ly adv.
popish·ness n.

popish [pope-ish]
Adjective
Offensive relating to Roman Catholicism

source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popish

 

[Hezekiah]

4 - No Trolling:

You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response.........

I meant the word specifically, but whatever. One could say some of the arrogance above would meet the same definition of trolling.

pop·ish (popish)
adj. Offensive

I'm familiar with the term. I was once RC myself. I'm a little surprised it is even used anymore; at least in it's historical sense.

I was hoping we could have an interfaith (ecumenical if you will) dialog on the topic and that is why I posted links representing the three different branches of Christianity. It appears that isn't going to happen, so suppose it is time to move on. May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...I was hoping we could have an interfaith (ecumenical if you will) dialog on the topic....

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you insulted us
However, we can start fresh if you wish

...I'm familiar with the term. I was once RC myself. I'm a little surprised it is even used anymore...

Huh? YOU are the one that used it. But as I said: We can start fresh if you wish

.

 

[Hezekiah]

...I was hoping we could have an interfaith (ecumenical if you will) dialog on the topic....

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you insulted us
However, we can start fresh if you wish

Actually, I found when you said the so-called "true successors (e.g. the Papacy), and their decisions on such matters are binding on all Christians. Period." simply beyond arrogant and insulting. Surely you knew that would be at least inflammatory to members of the Orthodox community or Protestant sects.

...I'm familiar with the term. I was once RC myself. I'm a little surprised it is even used anymore...

Huh? YOU are the one that used it. But as I said: We can start fresh if you wish
.

Used as an epithet that is. As to starting fresh? No thanks. If anything, this topic has been beat to death. It certainly won't do any good for reconciliation either. :

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Actually, I found when you said the so-called "true successors (e.g. the Papacy), and their decisions on such matters are binding on all Christians. Period." simply beyond arrogant and insulting....

That is Catholic Doctrine. Stating one's beliefs can hardly be equated with using known offensive or derrogatory words. Now, can we move on from this?

As to starting fresh? No thanks.

Okalee Dokaley