Catholic Questions

[~Willow~]

Yeah, he did...technically.

Christians say He didnt because they will be fulfilled in the 2nd coming. Jews counter with the OT does not speak of a 2nd coming, only one.

Round and round we go.

Note: these are not my beliefs or statements, just drawing the line between Judaism and Christianity for study purposes.

Like I said, stay away from this one. It does not lead anywhere pleasant.

I agree with you there. I wound up separating the threads so we aren't discussing a bunch of things in one thread. Hope that is okay.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

...wouldn't that be the Bible?

The "Bible" is a matter of opinion.

Judaism = 24 books
Protestants = 66 books
Catholics = 73 books
Eastern Orthodox = 73-75 books (depending on how Maccabees is split up)

The extra books are usually included to support particular dogma/positions within that religion/denomination...and that includes Christianity.

 

[~Willow~]

The "Bible" is a matter of opinion.

Judaism = 24 books
Protestants = 66 books
Catholics = 73 books
Eastern Orthodox = 73-75 books (depending on how Maccabees is split up)

The extra books are usually included to support particular dogma/positions within that religion/denomination...and that includes Christianity.

Does that bother anyone else?!

 

[~Willow~]

Yeah, he did...technically.

Christians say He didnt because they will be fulfilled in the 2nd coming. Jews counter with the OT does not speak of a 2nd coming, only one.

Round and round we go.

Note: these are not my beliefs or statements, just drawing the line between Judaism and Christianity for study purposes.

Like I said, stay away from this one. It does not lead anywhere pleasant.

I agree with you on that.

 

[~Willow~]

They were removed because they do not appear in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, which Westcott and Hort believed were the most dependable primary sources for the Biblical text.

Your question seems to assume that all scripture is equal. I am familiar with the Pauline text 'all scripture is profitable', but this does not mean all scripture is equal. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches scripture has been judged as it pertains to revealing the gospel. Those texts which are most beneficial to that end are incorporated heavily in the lectionary and those texts which are less so are seldom read publicly. Many of the apocryphal books are less pertinent to the gospel message.

Is a 66 book Bible wrong? I don't know. It could well be inadequate. However, the message of the gospel can be conveyed quite simply, and is yet so complex we will not totally fathom it until we transition from earth.

n response to your last post, It just seems that if they were supposed to be there, they should be there. I believe the Catholics say it's where they get purgatory and some of their other beliefs from.

Basically, are those seven books the Word of God and someone took them out or were they not the Word of God to begin with?

 

[~Willow~]

We'll just leave this one for the different Bibles since it's mostly that. Sorry!

 

[saintboniface]

The Catholic bible contains 27 new testament books and 46 old testament books. The King James Version (the foremost protestant bible) contains 27 new testament books and 39 old testament books. The 7 old testament books that are found in the Catholic bible but not the King James Version are: Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 & 2, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.


All old testament books were written prior to the birth of Jesus. The new testament books were written 20 to 100 years after Jesus was crucified. The early Christians used these books, along with other writings, but there was no consensus as to which writings were inspired by God. To resolve this question, the Council of Rome in 382 AD declared which books were inspired by God – these included the 27 new testament books and the 46 old testament books still in used in Catholic bibles to date. The Catholic bible has not changed since the original declaration of the inspired books in 382 AD.


All Christians accepted the 27 new testament books and the 46 old testament books until the early 1500's AD. Martin Luther rejected the 7 old testament books mentioned above. Some speculate that Luther rejected these books because they supported Catholic teachings that he disagreed with. Whatever the reason, Luther moved the 7 books to an appendix. In the 1800's, the 7 books were removed completely from the King James Version.


In summary, the Catholic Church never changed the books it considered inspired by God. The protestant bibles removed 7 books which had been part of the bible for 1500 years.



As a side note, the Jews before Jesus didn't even agree which books were to be considered part of their scripture. The Jews had a council in 90 AD in which they decided which books should be in scripture. I think most Christians can agree that it doesn't matter what the Jews did after Jesus died. Just like we don't look to the Jews for guidance now.

 

[~Willow~]

The Catholic bible contains 27 new testament books and 46 old testament books. The King James Version (the foremost protestant bible) contains 27 new testament books and 39 old testament books. The 7 old testament books that are found in the Catholic bible but not the King James Version are: Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 & 2, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.


All old testament books were written prior to the birth of Jesus. The new testament books were written 20 to 100 years after Jesus was crucified. The early Christians used these books, along with other writings, but there was no consensus as to which writings were inspired by God. To resolve this question, the Council of Rome in 382 AD declared which books were inspired by God – these included the 27 new testament books and the 46 old testament books still in used in Catholic bibles to date. The Catholic bible has not changed since the original declaration of the inspired books in 382 AD.


All Christians accepted the 27 new testament books and the 46 old testament books until the early 1500's AD. Martin Luther rejected the 7 old testament books mentioned above. Some speculate that Luther rejected these books because they supported Catholic teachings that he disagreed with. Whatever the reason, Luther moved the 7 books to an appendix. In the 1800's, the 7 books were removed completely from the King James Version.


In summary, the Catholic Church never changed the books it considered inspired by God. The protestant bibles removed 7 books which had been part of the bible for 1500 years.



As a side note, the Jews before Jesus didn't even agree which books were to be considered part of their scripture. The Jews had a council in 90 AD in which they decided which books should be in scripture. I think most Christians can agree that it doesn't matter what the Jews did after Jesus died. Just like we don't look to the Jews for guidance now.

I find it disturbing if the books were indeed in there for 1500 years. What things are in there that he supposedly didn't agree with?

You mentioned that the Jews didn't agree and they met to decide... did they include these or also reject them? Were they Messianic Jews or ones that did not believe Jesus is the Savior?

 

[~Willow~]

Is any of this true?


QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

-Chick Publications

 

[~Willow~]

Here is the issue I'm seeing. Some are saying all these books were there for 1500 years. Then, others are saying they were not accepted as scripture until later. The following site says the books are full of error:

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - The John Ankerberg Show

 

[ChristianT]

Before you dismiss the "apocrypha" is not scripture for the first 400 years, never being sacred scripture to Jews, or not being originally in Hebrew, the reason they exist at all in any bible is the Septugint. Thus I recommend studying about the Septuagint and why the earliest Christians and even Jews of the early church accepted it.

 

[~Willow~]

Before you dismiss the "apocrypha" is not scripture for the first 400 years, never being sacred scripture to Jews, or not being originally in Hebrew, the reason they exist at all in any bible is the Septugint. Thus I recommend studying about the Septuagint and why the earliest Christians and even Jews of the early church accepted it.

What do you think about the link I provided?

Also, here is another one:
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!

 

[Shane R]

Here is a different perspective, from the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican):

Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of KingsThe First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of SirachBaruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

 

[saintboniface]

I find it disturbing if the books were indeed in there for 1500 years. What things are in there that he supposedly didn't agree with?

You mentioned that the Jews didn't agree and they met to decide... did they include these or also reject them? Were they Messianic Jews or ones that did not believe Jesus is the Savior?

Luther primarily didn't want to include 2 Maccabees because it supports the concept of purgatory.

The Jews did not include them as scripture. They were the normal Jews who didn't believe Jesus was God.

 

[concretecamper]

I've always wondered about the differences between what Protestant Christians and Catholics believe.

Why does the Catholic Bible have additional books? Did the Roman Catholic Church add these, or did the protestants remove them? Why?

Edited: Too many questions in one thread on different topics. I've made separate threads for the rest. Sorry!

The difference is the Deuterocanonical books. These books where considered inspired by the early Church. One reason is the gospels and Paul's letters quote many passages from these books. Here is a sampling from Matthew.

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.

 

[saintboniface]

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
-Chick Publications

1. Who cares if the books were not written in Hebrew? The new testament books weren't written in Hebrew either.

2. None of the writers in any other books lay claim to inspiration. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the bible books are inspired.

3. Who cares what books were considered scripture by the Jews after Jesus was raised from the dead? Do Christians follow Jewish dietary laws?

4. During the first four centuries there was no consensus as to the books of that were inspired. Nobody declared which books were inspired until the Council of Rome in 382 AD.

5. There are fabulous statements throughout all of the other books of the bible. There are contradicting statements in Genesis for example. Two different stories of creation.

6. & 7. Same as number 5 above.

As for the link you provided. It is much of the same.

Here is the key: It is a historical fact that the Council of Rome declared the inspired books of the bible in 382 AD. It is a historical fact that the 7 books were considered nearly unanimously by all Christians as inspired. It is a historical fact that Martin Luther rejected the 7 books in the 1500s AD.

 

[graciesings]

I've always wondered about the differences between what Protestant Christians and Catholics believe.

Why does the Catholic Bible have additional books? Did the Roman Catholic Church add these, or did the protestants remove them? Why?

Edited: Too many questions in one thread on different topics. I've made separate threads for the rest. Sorry!

I always figured that the Catholic Bible has additional books because Luther removed (some of) the books he didn't liked

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm Catholic, but ex-Protestant. I lifted the following passage from this link (being basically lazy).

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html

"The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, meaning "seventy," and frequently referred to by the roman numerals LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The name derives from the tradition that it was made by seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars at Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.).

"The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era.

"The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de nova [which means anew], but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.

The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version [the Septuagint] (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus) [because Philo and Josephus quoted the Septuagint], gave place to a very contrary feeling when they [the Jews] found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decreed the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. [Previous to this, it was the Word of God as they were concerned. But as soon as the early church started using it against them and pointing out the depravity of Judaism, they tried to discredit the Septuagint]. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took; and as the Gentile Christians…fully embraced…its authority and inspiration, they necessarily regarded the denial on the part of the Jews of its accuracy, as little less than blasphemy, and as proof of their blindness."

The Septuagint (or LXX) included the seven books which are called Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical, depending on which side of the Catholic / Protestant divides you're on. Prior to the advent of Christianity the Greek-speaking Jews accepted the LXX as inspired. In fact it was mainly written for the Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria who no longer understood Hebrew, but understood Greek.

But when Christians, whom the Jews would have regarded as belonging to a heretical sect of Jewish origin, and which was vastly outstripping Judaism in growth, started using it a couple of centuries later, this grieved the Jews and they then disowned it. In fact they declared a day of fasting. But the fact remains that at one point they were quite happy to use it.

It would be therefore a strange form of circular reasoning for Christians to say that the additional 7 books of the OT in the LXX were uninspired because the Jews didn't like the early Christians and Church using them.

Having said that, I have to admit that whenever I read one of those seven books, I sort of get this sense that they're not as "inspired" as the rest. Don't ask me to prove it - it's just a sense. And that's as a Catholic ex-Protestant.

Tobit for example strikes me as a Jewish yarn. I also wonder if the heroine of the book Sara wasn't the woman referred to by the Sadducees when they were questioning Him about the woman who'd been married to seven husbands.

Tobit 3:7-8 "3:7 It came to pass the same day, that in Ecbatane a city of Media Sara the daughter of Raguel was also reproached by her father’s maids;

3:8 Because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her. Dost thou not know, said they, that thou hast strangled thine husbands? thou hast had already seven husbands, neither wast thou named after any of them."

The Sadducees were professional cynics, if my rudimentary understanding is correct. So they would have seen the Book of Tobit as a load of rubbish, suitable for trying to trick Christ with. But He simply avoided the whole issue of "inspiration" of Tobit, and simply claimed that in heaven nobody gets married, but are like the angels.

If that's the book they were referring to, then the Jewish authorities Christ was debating with would have been well aware of the existence of Tobit, regardless of what they thought about it.

To cut a long story short, the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky. If we're going to argue about the Catholic authority to declare which books are canonical and which aren't, the very same question applies to the Reformers and their successors.

Where did they get their authority from?

 

[Xalith]

I don't really like to lay judgment on religions, especially not Catholicism (even though it does have things I highly do not agree with), but this part here.....

It started around 110 AD with St. Ignatius. In his writing of the Letter to Polycarp, the groundwork was set for the bishop to be given power to bless a marriage, as well as annul a marriage (based on certain reasons).

Popes Alexander III and Innocent III concurred some 1,000 years later.

It has been a thing ever since.

Since when did the Bible ever give any human the right to annul a marriage? In fact, Jesus said quite the opposite: Matthew 5:32 tells us that no one may divorce, unless infidelity was involved.

So unless those "certain reasons" were "infidelity", they're in the wrong. And Jesus never said that said divorce must be done by any sort of priest, in fact, nowhere in Acts or any of the Epistles, or the Gospels does it say that we ought to have a ranking structure in the church, with the exception of some "Elders" that look after everyone else, kinda like church pastors that you see in Protestant churches.

In fact, you see the argument around that the Early Church didn't even have physical buildings that they met in, they actually met in random peoples' homes and it was just a group of believers gathering together, an elder or two teaching and exhorting Scripture to edify and instruct newer believers.

Somehow it went from that into a rank structure, to a ridiculous palatial city lined with gold and jewels with enough wealth to feed all of Africa for years. Did Jesus ever wear expensive jewelry and clothing? They gave Him a colored (most movies depict either red or purple) robes right before His crucifixion (the robe that the roman soldiers cast lots for because it was too precious to break into pieces) but otherwise He was portrayed as the most simple, and humble teacher to ever walk the Earth. In fact, He made it a very big point when He sent His disciples out two by two, that they should bring with them no money, no written accounts of money (scrip), nothing but one set of clothes and a wooden staff. They weren't even permitted to carry with them a change of clothes.

If Christians are supposed to emulate Christ... where does the pope get off with his gold jewelry, his hat with gold all over it, the pontiff's seat with the gold and jewels all over it, and the clothes he wears that you see him in sometimes, those are surely worth thousands of dollars. One of his outfits is probably worth more than I make in a year.

I don't see "Christ" in that. I really, really don't. That's why Catholicism bothers me, it is so.... unlike Christ. That's to say nothing about purgatory, praying to Mary and other saints (the Bible says that every saved Christian is a saint?), and other weird practices that they do.

Protestantism might have started with a king and his lust for women, but I'm sure plenty of people were uncomfortable with the practices of the RCC just like I am. That's probably why so many people in England were so quick to get on the boat.

EDIT: I am NOT saying that Protestant churches are perfect either, plenty of weird practices/doctrines there too (Replacement Theology for one).

 

[Job8]

I've heard differing accounts of the seven books. Some say the original versions did not have them and that the RCC added them. This is why I get so confused... because different people say different things

The Apocrypha was first added to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which is called the Septuagint (around 200 B.C.). This translation was used by Jews in Egypt and other countries outside of Palestine. Even though it was known that these were non-canonical books, the Catholic Pope insisted that Jerome include them in the Latin Vulgate, and eventually they were declared to be "scripture" by the Catholic church. Even though the KJV translators included them in the original KJV, they also made it clear in their preface that these books were NOT Scripture.

There are plenty of other differences between Protestants and Catholics which are more critical, since they relate to salvation.