Missing pages from one's bible

[The Liturgist]

Certainly the Catholic Church is a big target because of pro-life. But so many of the fake or greatly embellished anti-Catholic stories seem to survive for centuries no matter how many times refuted. We are all on a journey and we share so much, it would be much better to discuss how to combat Satan.

I agree entirely. I am so tired of pointless criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on various grounds, most of which are utterly baseless, and none of which are helpful (that apply on a church-wide basis). I do have specific criticisms of a few recent decisions of Pope Francis, and of some individual bishops (for example, the new Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, who stopped wearing the Shash, the beautiful traditional headgear of his office, related to the Shashta worn by all Assyrian bishops, on the basis that he regarded it as elitist, when he could rather have authorized all of his bishops to wear the Shash and in so doing brought the praxis of the Chaldean church closer to that of the Assyrian church, which it has been pursuing reunification with aggressively (in 2016 for example, the Chaldean Patriarch suggested to the Assyrian Patriarch and Holy Synod that the two churches reunite into one East Syriac church in communion with Rome, this being in stark contrast to the relationships between some other Eastern Catholic churches and their Orthodox counterparts. However these criticisms are not criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, or the members thereof.

I particularly admire our mutual friend @midgie for the posts on important events of prayerful concern in OBOB.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am so tired of pointless criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on various grounds, most of which are utterly baseless

Many of these criticisms are inherited from past ages when war and torture were part of resolving religious differences. They have no valid place among Christians today, yet they continue because they are a cultural element in many denominations. If only Christians would turn away from past prejudices and examine the facts available to them today. There is so little excuse for remaining ignorant of what any church teaches now when nearly every significant body of Christians has a web presence and abundantly documents their beliefs and practises.

 

[Erose]

There is so little excuse for remaining ignorant of what any church teaches now when nearly every significant body of Christians has a web presence and abundantly documents their beliefs and practises.

To be honest, I do not blame anyone for being ignorant of any other church's teaching than their own, because quite frankly, especially within the denominations that have history, it is a lot to learn one's own faith. I will be honest, I am the first to say that I'm completely ignorant on those denominations that I have very little interaction with such as let's say the free will baptists, which we do not have many around my neck of the woods. And even those that I do have interaction with, I will never know as well as I know my own faith, even when it comes to Southern Baptist and Pentecostal doctrine, both of which I have been members of, and am married to a Southern Baptist. I remember the basics, but that is about it.

The issue I have though, is even after one is corrected of their false assertions (about my faith), they ignore the correction, and double down on their ignorance.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The issue I have though, is even after one is corrected of their false assertions (about my faith), they ignore the correction, and double down on their ignorance.

I have seen the same.

 

[FredVB]

What though is apocrypha that we would know to be separate from what is included in the Bible? I am sure that having anything about an angel from God coming to someone and lying or suggesting to lie so as to deceive would indicate writing to be separate from what is included in the Bible.

But what of the first book of Enoch, what is in it disqualifying it? Early believers observed what is read from it, it is mentioned in the new testament, and quoted a few times. Jesus asked the Sadducees if they had not read the scriptures, they should know that after the resurrection we can be like the angels in heaven who are not ever given in marriage, Matthew 22:30. What passages in the scriptures was Jesus referring to, where is it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What though is apocrypha that we would know to be separate from what is included in the Bible? I am sure that having anything about an angel from God coming to someone and lying or suggesting to lie so as to deceive would indicate writing to be separate from what is included in the Bible.

But what of the first book of Enoch, what is in it disqualifying it? Early believers observed what is read from it, it is mentioned in the new testament, and quoted a few times. Jesus asked the Sadducees if they had not read the scriptures, they should know that after the resurrection we can be like the angels in heaven who are not ever given in marriage, Matthew 22:30. What passages in the scriptures was Jesus referring to, where is it?

Good point. Jude also alludes to extrabiblical literature in his letter.

There are multiple references in the Old Testament, primarily in the books of the kings and the chronicles, of other books which were used as references to verify these writings.

 

[Always in His Presence]

They are canonical indeed as defined by the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Jewish opinions apply to Jewish religion and catholic teaching applies to Catholic Christians.

Correct - but the Roman Catholic church is authority for the Roman Catholic Church and does not speak for the whole of Christianity, never has - most likely never will.

We could also ask why the Roman Catholic Church is missing the books found in the Eastern Orthodox? Does it bother you that pages are missing?

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church did not Canonize the 73 books until the 1500's? The Canonization in the 1500's was in response to the growing protestant movement that embraced the 66 from a millennia earlier

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct - but the Roman Catholic church is authority for the Roman Catholic Church and does not speak for the whole of Christianity, never has - most likely never will.

View attachment 371624

We could also ask why the Roman Catholic Church is missing the books found in the Eastern Orthodox? Does it bother you that pages are missing?

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church did not Canonize the 73 books until the 1500's? The Canonization in the 1500's was in response to the growing protestant movement that embraced the 66 from a millennia earlier

Quite correct. In addition, when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin he translated only the 66 books found in the Protestant canon and excluded the others because they were written in Greek and not in Hebrew. Under pressure from the church hierarchy he did translate the other books into Latin.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We could also ask why the Roman Catholic Church is missing the books found in the Eastern Orthodox?

Surely you, who has 66 books, could not ask that with any kind of integrity.

 

[Valletta]

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church did not Canonize the 73 books until the 1500's? The Canonization in the 1500's was in response to the growing protestant movement that embraced the 66 from a millennia earlier

False. The Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible in the late 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

It bothers me a lot, because Wisdom ch. 2 is one of the most important Christological prophecies in the Old Testament.

For me even Roman Catholic Bibles are problematic, because the Vulgate while good doesn’t have all of the Septuagint translation I like, although it is my preferred way of referencing the Hebrew / Aramaic Old Testament text in the absnece of a good translation of the Peshitta or the original textual variants of the Hebrew which were most lost.

 

[The Liturgist]

Surely you, who has 66 books, could not ask that with any kind of integrity.

Also the question is invalid, since the Byzantine Catholic churches use the same Bibles as their Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox counterparts, so all Catholics have access to all Orthodox texts, just as all Catholics and Orthodox can, if the Orthodox bishops allow (which in the Middle East does happen, and also is hte case with the Syriac Orthodox Church and also the third Eastern church family, the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East, who will communicate anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed and the Real Presence and will in the absence of their own clergy communicate at other churches that share those beliefs, particularly East Syriac Rite Catholic churches such as the Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics).

 

[Always in His Presence]

False. The Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible in the late 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Not false:

Formal canonization happened in the 1500's in reply to the Protestant movement which recognized the 66 that were set aside in the first, second and third century.

I understand that is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches - however it is not what history teaches.

History states the Old Testament aligns with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), finalized by Jewish rabbis around 90–100 AD at the Council of Jamnia, while the 27 books of the New Testament The core was widely accepted by the 2nd century (e.g., the Muratorian Fragment around 170 AD lists most),

It was not changed until 382 at Hippo and then further in 397 that the Apocryphal were added - but thew formal canonization and acceptance happened at Trent in the 1500's. In response to Luther's 1534 German Bible placed the deuterocanonicals in a separate "Apocrypha" section as non-canonical. This view spread, leading to explicit 66-book lists in Reformed confessions starting in 1559.

 

[Valletta]

Quite correct. In addition, when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin he translated only the 66 books found in the Protestant canon and excluded the others because they were written in Greek and not in Hebrew. Under pressure from the church hierarchy he did translate the other books into Latin.

Jerome made a note stating that the major group of Jews of the day rejected the Deuterocanonicals. Jerome took a lot of criticism for that note. In response to the critics Jerome 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 Song 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 [AD 402]).

 

[Valletta]

Not false:

Formal canonization happened in the 1500's in reply to the Protestant movement which recognized the 66 that were set aside in the first, second and third century.

I understand that is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches - however it is not what history teaches.

Don't follow a false history. The 73 books of the Bible were canonized in the late 300s. All Catholic Bibles since that time contain the same 73 books, in the same order established by the Church in the late 300s.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Don't follow a false history. The 73 books of the Bible were canonized in the late 300s. All Catholic Bibles since that time contain the same 73 books, in the same order established by the Church in the late 300s.

I have too much respect for you to accuse you of following a false anything - your responded while I was presenting the historical evidence. There was no one who was ever referred to as a pope in the first 390 years or so - the word and title did not exist. These changes happened only after the Westernized Church was formed.

The apocrypha are historical in nature, but lack a number of criteria to be accepted as divine. It was that way for over 300 years.

I know the history - I was taught it as the sone of a Seminarian in the Roman Catholic Church and I learned of the difference when I was working on my Masters in Divinity and Theology.

If you are not able to discuss this without the negative emotions - I will gladly back away. I choose not to speak to you in such degrading terms or accusations.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The initial question I asked remains unanswered - Do Roman Catholics believe that their Bible is missing pages because the Orthodox has more?

If not, why not. I would ask my great and learned friend @Xeno.of.athens to answer, because this is his thread and I am curious of his response. Thank you.

 

[Valletta]

I have too much respect for you to accuse you of following a false anything - your responded while I was presenting the historical evidence. There was no one who was ever referred to as a pope in the first 390 years or so - the word and title did not exist. These changes happened only after the Westernized Church was formed.

The apocrypha are historical in nature, but lack a number of criteria to be accepted as divine. It was that way for over 300 years.

I know the history - I was taught it as the sone of a Seminarian in the Roman Catholic Church and I learned of the difference when I was working on my Masters in Divinity and Theology.

If you are not able to discuss this without the negative emotions - I will gladly back away. I choose not to speak to you in such degrading terms or accusations.

The earliest Christians were not at one time referred to as Christians either, the first usage of the word is mentioned in the Bible--it is what the pagans called the followers of Christ. That does not mean that the Apostles and those others who followed the teachings of Jesus were not Christians before the word was first used. Although the title "pope" was not used in the early Church I would bet that many of your fellow seminarians of the Catholic Church would disagree with your views about the existence of the earliest popes.

 

[Colo Millz]

Has anyone in the thread discussed the Septuagint canon (east) versus Hebrew canon (west) yet?

The Hebrew canon was not as long as the Septuagint canon, no?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Has anyone in the thread discussed the Septuagint canon (east) versus Hebrew canon (west) yet?

The Hebrew canon was not as long as the Septuagint canon, no?

I did allude to that in my previous post where I mentioned that Jerome initially translated only the Hebrew books of the Old Testament.