Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't think the Jewish canon recognizes these books.

That is correct, nor does Judaism recognise the New Testament as canonical yet Christians do.

 

[Valletta]

That is correct, nor does Judaism recognise the New Testament as canonical yet Christians do.

Right, Jews do not recognize the Gospels as Holy Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

That is correct, nor does Judaism recognise the New Testament as canonical yet Christians do.

This may help answer your question:

"Early Christians answered the question “What is the Old Testament?” differently as they recognized the voice of their Shepherd in the Jewish writings that remained. Jesus and the Apostles did not leave behind a list of authoritative books for the earliest church, and there were various spiritually significant books and different opinions about them. The complete Greek Bible codices of the fourth century (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) contained many of the deuterocanonical books alongside the others. They were integrated alongside the rest of the Old Testament. . . .

In the third century, Christians began to cite the deuterocanonical books as “scripture.” Clearly, they considered these works important. Although the New Testament and second-century authors never cite the deuterocanonical books as scripture, they do allude to them, showing awareness of them . . .

These Christians and others beside did not outright reject the deuterocanonical books. Rather, they considered them useful for believers to read for edification, but not authoritative for doctrine. That is, their first-tier-canonical books established doctrine for the church, while second-tier-readable books illustrated piety for believers. That is a crucial distinction that is sometimes lost today.

In the Latin West, another development was underway. Instead of asking whether a book was part of the Jewish canon, some early Christians accepted a book into the canon if the churches read and received that book. Augustine of Hippo and Pope Innocent I, for example, clearly accepted the deuterocanonical books based on this consideration. But other Latin Christians such as Jerome of Stridon and Rufinus of Aquileia continued to promote the narrower canon, placing the deuterocanonical books in a secondary list of edificatory books that did not establish church doctrine."

Why Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different? by John Meade.

 

[ozso]

Okay, if what's in the Tanakh is what matters then why have a New Testament; there's no New Testament in a Tanakh.

The Tankah is 39 books of the Old Testament that are in your Bible.

 

[Tuur]

Maccabees contains the reference from Hebrews about those who were tortured because of their belief in resurrection so understandably it was dropped by most Jews after Jesus rose from the dead.

Uh...this is beyond what I know, but I think that it wasn't a matter of the books being dropped by the Jews but one of not being accepted as canon in the first place. But I don't know.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Tankah is 39 books of the Old Testament that are in your Bible.

Not exactly, Esther is edited to remove all references to God in the Tanakh, and Daniel is edited too. And Catholic Old Testaments have 46 books.

 

[ozso]

Not exactly, Esther is edited to remove all references to God in the Tanakh, and Daniel is edited too. And Catholic Old Testaments have 46 books.

I meant all 39 out of the 46 are in your Bible. Minus whatever edits.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I meant all 39 out of the 46 are in your Bible. Minus whatever edits.

There are some differences in the source texts too, Tanakh is pretty well nothing but the Masoretic text while Catholic Old Testament texts use Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, and Old Latin as well as the Vulgate.

 

[Philip_B]

Maccabees contains the reference from Hebrews about those who were tortured because of their belief in resurrection so understandably it was dropped by most Jews after Jesus rose from the dead.

Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented—
Hebrews 11:35-37


It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and thongs, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. When he was near death, he said, ‘One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!’
2 Maccabees 7:1,13-14​

I presume you are referring to this alignment in the text. I believe it would be clearer if you said that Hebrews, references or alludes to Maccabees. Resurrection was not alien to Jewish belief, and neither was it mandated. The was a difference between to approach of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the area.

The reason why the Jewish communities ultimately endorsed the Maseoritic Canon and reject the LXX was more because the first was Hebrew and the second contained the Deuterocaninicals which were written in Greek.

 

[disciple Clint]

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.

Fine then the Catholics should follow their beliefs and the protestants should follow theirs. Even the Catholic St Jerome had reservations about the status of some of the books now in the Catholic Bible. " One of the biggest differences he saw between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew was that the Jews did not include the books now known as the Apocrypha in their canon of Holy Scripture. Though he still felt obligated to include them, Jerome made it clear that he thought them to be church books, not fully inspired canonical books. (Reformation leaders would later remove them entirely from their Bibles.)"
Jerome

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Fine then the Catholics should follow their beliefs and the protestants should follow theirs.

BY and large such is so. Catholics follow Catholic teaching and Protestants follow their denomination's teaching. But some follow neither.

 

[disciple Clint]

BY and large such is so. Catholics follow Catholic teaching and Protestants follow their denomination's teaching. But some follow neither.

So to return to the original question, I am not uncomfortable not having what you consider to be 300 missing pages but then I am not trying to use them to justify something that was made up by men and not by God. For example Purgatory an invention of Agustin and used by the Catholic church as a money maker, without the books of Maccabees it falls flat on its face, And even with them it is very poorly supported. No honestly I do not feel I am missing anything.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Catholic Church says it.

I'm not a Catholic though.
The Catholic church says a number of things that I don't agree with.

The only way to see is to read them for yourself (if you have not yet read them), or to read commentaries on them which include the text that is commented upon.

They are/may be interesting, but are not about our faith and, I doubt, contain any new revelation about God that is not found anywhere else in Scripture.
So we are not going to miss out, or be deficient in our faith, if we don't have/read them.

None of them is canonical so none of them play a direct role in deciding doctrine, morals, or practises; but some of these books (such as the Didache) are valuable sources from which the Church and scholars within the Church can gain a better understanding of ancient practises, the meaning of words, and the significance of customs and practises from ancient times.

Yes, like I said, they may be interesting, but are not essential for faith and doctrine.

Therefore we are not missing out if we don't have them - nor do we have incomplete Bibles.

I do believe that Protestants appear to have varying views on many matters and not least on how they view the books that they call apocryphal.

Yes, we do have varying views on many matters - but not the Gospel.
As I have said, several times before, to your fellow Catholics; we all believe the same Gospel.
Both Catholics and protestants have the same God, same Saviour, same Holy Spirit. We believe that Jesus was both man and God and is our only Saviour. We believe in the cross, the resurrection and ascension, Pentecost and that Jesus will return one day. We are, or can both be, born again, filled with the Spirit and become children of God.

Sorry but the notion that Catholics have "more of the truth" than the rest of us, is incorrect.
I know you haven't said that directly, but it is implied by the statement that we have incomplete Bibles, and what's more, are happy about it.

 

[Valletta]

Uh...this is beyond what I know, but I think that it wasn't a matter of the books being dropped by the Jews but one of not being accepted as canon in the first place. But I don't know.

In relatively modern times the excuse was that none of the Deuterocanonicals was ever written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls proved that wrong. The book of Esther was the only Deuterocanonical of which no portion was found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Part of Esther is in the Protestant version of the Bible, but they do not include the parts that mention God that are found in the Catholic Bible. It has been proposed that Esther was accepted by some Jews and not others, but we do not know.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not a Catholic though.
The Catholic church says a number of things that I don't agree with.

You should be
You ought to agree with everything that the Catholic Church says

 

[Strong in Him]

You should be
You ought to agree with everything that the Catholic Church says

No, there's no "should" about it.
I'm not talking about catholic in the sense of universal; I am a member of THE church.
I'm talking about worshipping in a Catholic church, joining the Catholic denomination and agreeing with everything it teaches, about Mary, taking communion, praying to saints and so on.
I don't HAVE to agree with that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Always remember what the Lord says

Wisdom 11:23-27

23 For, like a tiny grain on a scale, just so is the world before you, and like a drop dew before dawn, which descends upon the earth. 24 But you are merciful to all, because you can do all, and you dismiss the sins of man because of repentance. 25 For you love all things that are, and you hate nothing of the things you have made; for you would not have created or established anything that you hated. 26 For how could anything endure, except by your will? Or what, having been called by you not to exist, would be preserved? 27 Yet you spare all things, because they are yours, O Lord, who loves souls.​

 

[disciple Clint]

You should be
You ought to agree with everything that the Catholic Church says

You ought to agree with everything that the Catholic Church says

Not everyone in the Catholic Church agrees with the official position of the Catholic Church, look at church history.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not everyone in the Catholic Church agrees with the official position of the Catholic Church, look at church history.

It's naughty not to agree, you know.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's naughty not to agree, you know.

Then the vast majority of Catholics are very naughty, indeed.