A question for Catholics and Protestants.

[joyinhim]

Why does the Catholics say that Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible?

Begin the [discussion] :angel:

 

[thessalonian]

Why does the Catholics say that Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible?

Begin the [discussion] :angel:

Quite simply because they did. In 394 Pope Damasus declared the Christian cannon including the 7 Deuterocannonicals. The councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Flourence ratified the Canon. The men of the reformation 20 years before the Council of Trent (which affirmed them) removed them. Christian Bibles before the reformation included them. That's history.

 

[joyinhim]

thess,

was that a biblical thing to do?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Can I play? I'm neither catholic nor Potestant, but I have a thought or two on the matter...

:wink:

 

[Soma-Sight]

Quite simply because they did. In 394 Pope Damasus declared the Christian cannon including the 7 Deuterocannonicals. The councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Flourence ratified the Canon. The men of the reformation 20 years before the Council of Trent (which affirmed them) removed them. Christian Bibles before the reformation included them. That's history.

So what IS the WOG?

The Protestant version only?

 

[joyinhim]

Can I play? I'm neither catholic nor Potestant, but I have a thought or two on the matter...

:wink:

orthodox,

If you have information for us, come on in. :angel:

 

[thessalonian]

thess,

was that a biblical thing to do?

I would think subtracting from God's word wouldn't be too good. So no.

 

[Bubba]

Bob Burridge writes: "What about the Apocryphal Books?
Some other books, written after the completion of the Hebrew Scriptures, are sometimes included in ancient copies of the Bible. They are: Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, I & II Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and additions to Esther & Daniel. These books contain some good material which is historically helpful and consistent with revealed truth. They also contain some fanciful and questionable material that is in open conflict with the canonical books.

The Apocryphal books are included in the Latin Vulgate which was translated by Jerome. This version adds I & II Esdras, and the Prayer of Menassah. Jerome translated the Vulgate around the year 400 AD. Yet he speaks of a canon identical with ours. He personally rejected the Apocryphal books as authoritative. He translated Tobit and Judith in one day (not much time invested), then refused to do any more. Other apocryphal books were added to the Vulgate at a later time by other translators.

Early copies of the Bible and Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, often abbreviated LXX) often include the Apocrypha. These early versions regarded the Apocryphal books as good writings of value for reading (like Bible notes or appendices) but not as infallible, inspired writings.

St. Augustine (393 - 397 AD) listed the apocryphal writings along with other books he felt were acceptable for Christians to read for edification. He never said that he accepted them as inspired.

The valuable Leningrad Manuscript of the Hebrew Scriptures (a 9th century copy said to have been based on copies by ancients) contains the same books as our Old Testament canon.

Historic testimony shows that the apocryphal books were never regarded as part of the Christian canon by the church. There is universal testimony to the reception of our present Old Testament canon. It comes to us without serious question or debate. (see the Westminster Confession of Faith I:3)"

Beza

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Can I play? I'm neither catholic nor Potestant, but I have a thought or two on the matter...

:wink:

orthodox,

If you have information for us, come on in. :angel:

Thank you, joyinhim.
Now we Orthodox and the Catholics have a common root going back to Apostolic times. We emerged from the age of the Church Fathers with slightly different canons, largely because Catholics used Jerome's Latin translation (Vulgate), and we continued to use the Greek Septuagint OT.

Jerome's translation was based upon both Greek and Hebrew sources.

Now to those who claim that the so-called apocrypha was not canonized until Trent, I invite them to look at the canons of the synodsat Carthage, where the NT canon was also decided. Among those OT books listed will they find those who they now reject.

One of the reasons why the Protestants came to reject what are sometimes called deuterocanonicals is because of St Jerome's influence. He viewed them as lesser, and this idea caught hold in the West.

When the Protestant reformation came, all the rules (caonons) came under fire. Luther famously sought to reject the books which had been disputed in the 3rd-5th centuries: Hebrews, James, Revelation...but there was no assent among his contemporaries regarding the disposal of the "epistle of straw" (James) and the other two books which punched holes in his tidy little sola formulas.

He did find common assent though with dispensing with the so-called deutero-canonical. These books seemed to reinforce some Catholic practices that they disagreed with. Besides, Luther had taken a shine to all things Hebrew, so he and his contemporaries were drawn to the truncated canon of the 5th century Rabbinical Jews (Masoretic text). So they adopted the text of the Christ-rejecting Rabbinical Jews, then soon after rejected the Jews themselves, and Luther released his lovely pamphlet "the Jews and their lies."

Apparently, these 'lying' Jews were to be trusted with OT canon, however. :roll:

We Eastern Orthodox have no official translation of either the OT or the NT. We use the Septuagint OT, as we have since the first century, and our NT is of the Byzantine recension, the text that formed the basis for the KJV.

Interestingly, moden critical scholarship prefers the Egyptian recension over the Greek text safeguarded by, well, Greeks.

Those Protestants who love their KJV love a received NT text, and hate the critical text which they say 'subtracts' from the original. Yet they love the OT Masoretic critical text, with its 'subtractions,' and reject the received text, which is and was the Septuagint.

Why? It is not a love of accuracy on their part, it is a hatred of Catholicism and a love of their pet doctrines over the pure milk and meat of God's words.

They truly are children of their fathers, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

 

[thessalonian]

Evidently the Westminster confessional is a rather poor history book. The Church almost universally did accept the Deuterocanonicals from the time of Damasus until the reformation took upon itself the authority of removing them. This is just plain fact. And the facts are distorted on Jerome.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settledâ€â€the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.


Jerome is one Father and he submitted to the Chruch and included them in the Vulgate. Why do Protestants have to make up stories such as Trent Added the seven Deuterocanonicals?

This from Protestant Historian JND Kelly:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.

Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

 

[thessalonian]

Thanks for that OC. The orthodox acceptance of the Dueteros proves that they were not added at Trent, proving that Protestants have to attempt to distort history to prop up their theories. But the truth is laid bare for all to see in this matter.

 

[joyinhim]

May I have SDA's research on this please?

 

[Heidi]

Why does the Catholics say that Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible?

Begin the [discussion] :angel:

You need to read the history of the bible to see why some books were not considered for canonization. There were many, many books written throughout the first 4 centuries just like there are many, many false teachings floating around today. Many books were not considered credible because they contradicted the apostles' statements.

 

[thessalonian]

You need to read the history of the bible to see why some books were not considered for canonization. There were many, many books written throughout the first 4 centuries just like there are many, many false teachings floating around today. Many books were not considered credible because they contradicted the apostles' statements.

You are quite right. And those who were the Christians of the time settled the issue quite nicely at the end of the fourth century. And the Christian world accepted what they decided. It was not until the deformation that someone decided to descent based on personal opinion and removed the seven books. It's lucky the one who started it all was held back or more would have been removed. By what authority were any removed? If some group gets together today and removes some more or adds some are you okay with that?

 

[cj]

Now we Orthodox and the Catholics have a common root going back to Apostolic times. We emerged from the age of the Church Fathers with slightly different canons, largely because Catholics used Jerome's Latin translation (Vulgate), and we continued to use the Greek Septuagint OT...............

.......... Those Protestants who love their KJV love a received NT text, and hate the critical text which they say 'subtracts' from the original. Yet they love the OT Masoretic critical text, with its 'subtractions,' and reject the received text, which is and was the Septuagint.

Why? It is not a love of accuracy on their part, it is a hatred of Catholicism and a love of their pet doctrines over the pure milk and meat of God's words.

They truly are children of their fathers, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Yes, in a sense many are.

But this sense is according to the same truth that defines/declares your own fallen nature, a nature that can be traced way back past the times of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Your fallen nature, and mine, and those who you term "... truly are children of their fathers, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin"....... can be traced to Satan himself. Jesus even told us this.

Truth be told, neither the Orthodox ways nor the Roman ways ".... have a common root going back to Apostolic times...", but rather have a common root going back to the fall of Lucifer, a root that can be traced through the degradation of creation in Adam.


Joy, what bible did Jesus have? Or Peter, or Paul, or John,.... or any of the first century believers,..... the first century saved believers?

The obvious answer is they didn't have the bible.

And in this human historical fact,..... but more importantly, in this divine historical fact (human history being submitted to divine history), lies both the proper question to ask and the proper answer for this question.

"Why was it not necessary for there to be a bible in the first century but a bible was needed in the fourth century?

See, not every question is a valid and viable question, for the improper question asked can end up bring you to an improper answer, which can then lead you down an improper path.

Be genuine, consider all your questions before the Lord; not for the answers at first, but to be sure you are asking the proper question.


Be clear about this,.... God has an economy by which His will is carried out; and all creation is subject to this divine economy,.... willingly or unwillingly,.... worked out in a positive sense or a negative sense.

Again,... be clear,...... GOD HAS AN ECONOMY,..... A LIVING, MOVING, WORKING, GAINING, ACCOMPLISHING....... ECONOMY.

Under which all things fall. Including the historical introduction of the bible,.... with all its many developments, inclusions, exclusions,.... and even its hiding during the dark ages and its reappearance timed with the introduction of the printing press.

And it is this economy of God that you should consider, that we all should consider, and not, as is presented in many posts on this board, the efforts of men.

Men serve God,.... not, as the Orthodox followers, Roman followers, and the many followers of the daughter harlots would like to believe, God serves men.


Until a believer comes into this view, the view that God has an economy for all things and that this economy is what must be considered in order to see truth, men will remain in the darkness as to the truth of a matter.




Check out your question in this light....

"Why does the Catholics say that Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible?"

.... and consider whether the answer you get from various men would be that which you would get from God.


Instead of seeking the answers of men, seek God.....

"God, why has this situation regarding the books of the bible be allowed in your economy?"

And then, as with all things, turn prayerfully to the word of God and by the Spirit be open to God revealing His answer to you.


You know, I know some Chinese saints who deeply appreciated the gift of just being able to come in contact with just one page of scripture. And they never really knew when they would get another page to read.

And yet, these and other men they come in contact with are saved and grow tremendously in the Lord even in such a limited environment.


How absolutely superficial we are when we puff ourselves up and start our responses with a declaration of where our roots can be traced to.


Man's fallen ways..... what a stench in God's nostrils.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

You need to read the history of the bible to see why some books were not considered for canonization. There were many, many books written throughout the first 4 centuries just like there are many, many false teachings floating around today. Many books were not considered credible because they contradicted the apostles' statements.

You are quite right. And those who were the Christians of the time settled the issue quite nicely at the end of the fourth century. And the Christian world accepted what they decided. It was not until the deformation that someone decided to descent based on personal opinion and removed the seven books. It's lucky the one who started it all was held back or more would have been removed. By what authority were any removed? If some group gets together today and removes some more or adds some are you okay with that?

Good points. Another point of import here is that the books that were excluded didn't "contradict" the writings that became canon: most were excluded because they simply restated what the canonical books did, and because they generally did not have a good historical pedigree (they were written after the deaths of thir alleged authors- but then again, so were the books of Moses). Some of the books exluded were of supposed 'secret' teachings of Christ- many of these had already been refuted by folks like Polycarp, who knew John the Apostle, and knew that he did not have any 'secret' teaching that wasn't already in circulation in the churches.

Nearly all the books to which we are referring were NT era writings. Only a couple of the older, Jewish apocalyptic writngs, such as Enoch, were in use and yet controversial.

Bear this in mind: There was no controversy whatsoever among those who canoized the scriptures in the 4th-5th centuries regarding the so-called deuterocanonicals/apocrypha. As I stated, the synods at Carthage, which canonized the NT, had no dispute whatsoever about the so-called apocrypha.

I have read the history of the development of the Church and of the development of the Canon at great length, and I know factually that the controversial books to which Heidi alludes were not the books in question on this thread. I do agree that there are many false teachings "floating around today." Many of them are initiated by folks who read a couple of books from secondary sources, then think they are equipped to teach history and discern right doctrine.

 

[cj]

You are quite right. And those who were the Christians of the time settled the issue quite nicely at the end of the fourth century........ And the Christian world accepted what they decided...... It was not until the deformation that someone decided to descent based on personal opinion and removed the seven books. It's lucky the one who started it all was held back or more would have been removed. By what authority were any removed? If some group gets together today and removes some more or adds some are you okay with that?

And here we have yet another perfect example of weak human reasoning.

How many years came between Genesis and Revelation?

And yet one is being asked to conclude that everything was perfect with what came out of Roman.

And to add insult to injury, we are told that this must be the truth because.... ".... the Christian world accepted what they decided."


Oh Lord Jesus, save us from such darkness.


How long has it been tha the Roman institution has been accepting child-molesters?

Perhap you would suggest that we should just receive this as being God's perfect will also, seeing that it is something that has been commonly accepted by the Roman leadership institution.


Yeh, right.


In love,
cj

 

[joyinhim]

cj,

Thank you for your insight.

We don't need too much information to follow Jesus.

I actually believe NT information is pretty much surficient for us to follow Him effectively.

In free countries, we have so many Bible scholars, churches, pastors and all kinds of spiritual leaders. Yet we are so powerless for the Lord.

The Root of our powerless Christianity is our half heartedness.

In persecuted countries, many Christians don't even own the Bible, yet they have the heart of following Him wholeheartedly. They are witnessing effectively inspite of persecution.

Jesus says "If you don't give up everything, you can not be my disciple": This is very heavy warning from the Lord. It has to be repeated from the church leaders and we should remind each other very often.

Unfortunately, Jesus' warnings are hardly ever told by most pastors. :

 

[thessalonian]

Thank you for your historically astute analysis CJ. I guess since you have done little study on the issue all you can do is lash out with red herrings. Perhaps you would like to go to http://www.reformation.com and see how many protestant child molesters there are. Did you know that 70% of Protestant pastors know of other pastors (11-13%) who have cheated on their wives. Oh, but all sin is equal according to you people. So are they harboring these fornicators by not exposing them to their congregations. I have heard that 30% of Protestant pastors are involved in pornography. Expose them. There are sinners among all of us CJ. Only a pharasee would boast that his group is better than another in that regard. The Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. Your ignorant comments are noted.

By the way, it does seem that you are fine with someone who would doudt the canon of scritpure today. Who says the reformers were right? Perhaps James is an epistle of straw as one of them called it.

Blessings

 

[cj]

Now lets look at a master manipulator.....

Thank you for your historically astute analysis CJ.

First, I never presented it as a historically astute anything, therefore, what we have here is the beginning of the false sarcastic presentation.

Bravo Thess, at least you are consistent to your roots. But let's move on,....

I guess since you have done little study on the issue all you can do is lash out with red herrings.

Don't guess, it makes you look foolish.

And there is no red herring, God deals with motive and principles, and this is the point of view that I came from.

Perhaps you would like to go to http://www.reformation.com and see how many protestant child molesters there are.

This fact does not negate what has taken place in the Roma institution.

In fact, it exposes the clear connection between the Roman institution, the mother prostitute, and the many other denominations and sects that make up Christianity, the daughter harlots.

Did you know that 70% of Protestant pastors know of other pastors (11-13%) who have cheated on their wives.

Actually, if we go by Jesus' standard, (remember, its the thought that really counts) that number would probably be higher.

Oh, but all sin is equal according to you people. So are they harboring these fornicators by not exposing them to their congregations.

Although you did not state your thought clearly, I will take what you said to mean that by maintaining fellowship with these saints it is the same as what the Roman institution has done,.... if this is what you are saying then absolutely.

But there is always the matter of forgiveness and from this a reestablishing of fellowship.

Yet, the Romanist have gone beyond this point and made the perpetrators above the "common" believer, even to the point where all manner of eveil was openly tolerated.

In fact, one can go as far as saying that this evil was promoted by the adhering to of false doctrines, traditions, and forms.

I have heard that 30% of Protestant pastors are involved in pornography.

Meaning that they are producing it or suffering from the corrupt hold of it? Be clear.

Expose them.

That's God's job. Look at how well He is doing it too.

There are sinners among all of us CJ.

Absolutely.... including us.

Only a pharasee would boast that his group is better than another in that regard.

The quite being a Pharisee in any regard.

Its the principle that counts Thess,.... the outward issue is simply the manifestation of the inward disease.

The Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. Your ignorant comments are noted.

The only ignorance here is what you've been speaking, as seen in your comment above.

The church is the house/temple of God, or so the scriptures declare.

Show me where it says that it is a hospital for the sick and not a hotel for the saint.

You can't because its something you've made up,.... again.

By the way, it does seem that you are fine with someone who would doudt the canon of scritpure today.

Only a blind person would say that,.... a blind, desperate, and darkened person.

For you have no ground to stae this.

Fact is, you expose yourself as a deceiver doing so.

Who says the reformers were right?

Not me.

Perhaps James is an epistle of straw as one of them called it.

Or perhaps not.

But who really cares what any of them said yesterday,...... for God is with us today.

Today is what matters, or so the bible declares.


In love,
cj