Roman church errors and inventions

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

They are both Prophecies

No, one is a text which contains prophesy.

 

[mont974x4]

Go read Tobit 4 for the basis of buying your way out of hell. It's clearly written.

Having a "saint" of (insert issue here) for every issue is adopted from pagan practices of having gods for everything. And yes, you treat your "saints" as gods, worshipping them having, praying to them, lighting candles to them.


Nice elitist talk. I always consider all beleiver regardless of denomination as a brother in Christ, a member of the Church.

Denomination is defined as:
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

really it isn't bad, and it certainly fits the rcc.


You do understand that a rabbi is a very learned teacher, right? So when this rabbi explained that tobit, and the aprocrypha, were added books that were not considered divine he actually does have the credibility to make the claim.

Like many books, the apocypha books are OK, even useful to a point...but not divine, and threfore not Scripture.



God chose Mathias, they cast lots. They're is no succession of popes through the ages. God built His Church on Christ through the confession of Him as Lord...not Pete.


We had a thread awhile back about rc's reading the Bible. It seemed the majority counted it as "reading" if they heard it read in mass. Had people actually read Scripture, they demand that rome change it ways. Oh, wait Luther did try that and they booted him out and called him a heretic, leading to a great deal of violence. Some would think it would have been better to actually have the honest discussion with Luther, comparing the teachings of rome with actual Scripture. Oh, what pain that could have avoided!

with that..good night

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, one is a text which contains prophesy.

Can you clarify?

Matt 23:27 "Woe to ye, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! That ye are liken to tombs having been whitewashed who any outside indeed are appearing beautiful, inside yet are being crammed of bones of dead-ones and of every uncleaness.
28 Thus also ye outside indeed are appearing to the men righteous, inside yet, ye are distended of hypocrisy and of lawlessness

Reve 18:11 "And the merchants of the land are lamenting and are mourning on Her, that the cargo of them not-yet-one is buying not-still.
13 "and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.

 

[Canaan-84]

That Scripture had nothing to do with it? Let's see, we have a denomination teaching what amounts to a dietary law, meatless Friday and wanting people to eat fish (which I always thought was meat anyways) and I posted a passage that clearly speaks against such things.


Tobit was not part of the Jewish canon...at leats that's what the Christ following former rabbi told me. Gee, should I believe him or you? And if it isn't in Tobit, it's in one of your extrabiblical books that shows the basis for what amounts to buying your way out of hell.

I'll see if I can find it for you, but it was in a thread here months ago. In typical fashion the rc's denied clearly written words, even from their own book.

An example of the propaganda you parrot is the ideal that only the rcc teaches the full truth, and of course the apostolic succession. Which is of course, entirely unbiblical and historically inacurate since the rcc didn't exist during the days of the apostles...regardless of what your denomination teaches you.


Go start a thread about the errors of protestantism, oh wait someone already did and it died out because the true errors of a select few were equally trounced by rc's and prots and what was thought to be an error was shown to be true...thus, not such a fun thread for the rc's, although it was nice to see us agree on a few things for a change.



At least you finally admitted error within the rcc when you admitted a few abused their power...which undermines the whole one true church, fullness of truth, and without error myth.


I know quite a few former rc's, in fact I was raised by one who found the truth and left Praise GOD. I also know a few priests, I even provided protection for one quite abit. He was chaplain in the Army. I also read what a lot of you write here, and researched the vaticans own website because I wanted to see things in context and make sure I read it straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28

Prior to Jesus’ time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture. Some groups of Jews used only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community, used all these and more. The Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were more normative than the others, having wider acceptance among orthodox Jews, but for Jews there was no universally defined canon to include or exclude the “deuterocanonical” books around 100 A.D.
The Apostles commissioned by Jesus,[5] however, used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) most of the time and must have accepted the Alexandrian canon. For example, 86 percent of Old Testament quotes in the Greek New Testament come directly from the Septuagint, not to mention numerous linguistic references. Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint. In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says “70,” while the Septuagint’s says “75,” the number Stephen used. Following the Apostles' example, Stephen clearly used the Septuagint.[6] (We also know from other ancient Christian documents, like the Didache[7] and Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, that the apostles’ successors not only used the Septuagint, but quote from all of the books in the Alexandrian canon as the authoritative word of God.)
There is no divinely inspired “table of contents” for the Bible, therefore, Christians need an authority, like the infallible Church established by Christ, to discern which books are the divinely inspired ones. (Indeed, even if there were such a “table of contents” list, we would need an authority to tell if the list itself were inspired.) Even many Evangelical Protestant Bible scholars admit this:
While we know that at the time of Jesus there were different canons of the Old Testament because the canonical process was not yet complete, the glorious truth is that God has invited humans to be partners in the putting together of Scripture. I think the implications are that you cannot have Scripture without the community of faith [in other words, the Church]. It’s not just a private revelation. God gives us Scripture, but then the [Church], by God’s guidance, has to choose what’s in and what’s out.”[8]
Why don’t the Jews accept the Alexandrian canon now, though? They follow after their predecessors, who around 100 A.D. decided that the Septuagint which followed the Alexandrian canon had at least two problems: First, it was written in Greek, which after the destruction of Jerusalem by Gentiles seemed “un-Jewish” or even “anti-Jewish.”[9] Second, Christians, following the lead of their apostolic leaders, widely used the Septuagint, especially in apologetics to the Jews; thus, non-Christian Jews wanted to deny the value of some of its books, such as the Book of Wisdom, which contains a profound prophecy of Christ’s death.
In the words of Protestant Septuagint scholar Sir Lancelot Benton:
The veneration with which the Jews had treated this [Septuagint] (as it is shown in the case of [Jewish historians] Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them [i.e., in Christian apologetics]: hence they decried the [Septuagint] version, and sought to deprive it of any authority.[10]
What are the classic Protestant arguments against the seven deuterocanonical books? Their major objection is that the deuterocanonicals contain doctrines and practices, such as the doctrine of purgatory and praying for the dead, that are irreconcilable with authentic Scripture. This objection, of course, begs the question. If the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then those doctrines and practices are not opposed to Scripture but part of Scripture. Another objection is that the deuterocanonical books “contain nothing prophetic.” This is clearly proved false by comparing Wisdom 1:16-2:1 and 2:12-24 to Matthew’s passion account, especially Matthew 27:40-43.
Many Protestants also argue that, because neither Jesus nor His apostles quote the deuterocanonical books, they should be left out of the Bible. This claim ignores that Jesus nor His apostles do not quote Ecclesiastes, Esther or the Song of Songs, nor even mention them in the New Testament; yet Protestants accept these books. Furthermore, the New Testament quotes and refers to many non-canonical books, like pagan poetry quoted by Paul and Jewish stories referred to by Jude, which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Scripture. Clearly New Testament quotation, or the lack thereof, cannot be a reliable indicator of Old Testament canonicity. (This also begs the question of which books belong in the New Testament and which do not.)
Other Protestants argue that today’s Jews do not accept the deuterocanon. This objection is problematic for two reasons. The first is why the Jews reject those books (see above). These books are rejected by Jews on the basis of bias against Christianity, something to which Protestants should not want to support. The second problem is this: Why should Christians accept the authority of post-Church-establishment, non-Christians instead of the Apostles of the Church that Christ founded? Would God found a Church and then let it fall into grave error concerning the Old Testament canon? This is an untenable position for any Christian to take.
Others point to St. Jerome's “rejection” of deuterocanonical material. While Jerome was originally suspicious of the “extra” Old Testament books, which he only knew in Greek, he fully accepted the judgment of the Church on the matter, as shown in a letter written in 402 A.D.:
What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? . . . I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Against Rufinius, 11:33, emphasis added).[11]
Remember that Protestants reject the longer, Alexandrian version of Daniel; St. Jerome did not.
Still more Protestants claim that the Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon. This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon.[12] Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418).[13] All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.
This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397).[14] In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse,[15] the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical[16] Council of Florence in 1442.[17] When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp



2. ....When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

3. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.

This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed "the certain, main books of the New Testament." In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.


4. Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?

Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life." Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.


5. But the book of Judith says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians, when he was really king of the Babylonians. If a book has errors, it can’t be inspired.

In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.

The same goes with the book of Judith. "Judith" means "lady Jew," and she personifies the nation of Israel, as "Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians" personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life." Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

One doesn't need the extra books in the Bible to interpret Daniel or Revelation and neither would the Jews probably.

Ezekiel 38:22 "And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [Revelation 16:21 and 20:9]

Luke 12:49 Fire I came to be casting upon the Land and any I am willing if already it was kindled.

Revelation 8:5 And has taken, the messenger, the franckincensor, and he crams-full it out of the Fire of the Altar. And he casts it into the Land and became thunders and sounds and lightnings and quaking

Reve 20:9 And they ascended on the breadth of the Land and they surround the camp of the holy-ones and the city, the having been loved. And descended Fire from the God out of the Heaven and it devoured them.

 

[seeker777]

This error really opened my eyes and was instrumental in my leaving.

The error deals with 2 Cor. 5:18

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Now, I have to say that I was shocked to read that the RCC actually tries to take a position that 2 Cor.5:18 is about priests hearing confessions and granting absolution. The Church makes the clear claim that this passage actually gives them their ministry of reconciliation, as hearing confessions and granting absolution.

I've debated with Catholics on other boards, and because they can see the words ' ministry of reconciliation', they automatically conclude that the passage must be talking about Catholic confession.

It truly is astounding that this claim is made, as the passage is so clearly speaking only of the apostles going out, spreading the good news of the gospels and imploring people to be reconciled to God. How should the people be reconciled to God, well the passage says how, through Christ Jesus.

The apostles were entrusted with the message of reconciliation! The message, meaning, spread the gospels, spread the good news, be reconciled to God through Christ Jesus!

Nowhere does it mention auricular confession to an ordained priest or the pronouncement of absolution.

 

[plmarquette]

H&S MODEL 600 MANURE SPREADERQuick Specs...600 BUSHEL MODEL
TRUCK MOUNT

Models Available in This Series....

Select a model below:

Model 600/600 BUSHEL

 

[Rick Otto]

Reading and studying the Scriptures is what keeps me from calling myself a Catholic

Me too.

 

[simonthezealot]

The Catholic Church is considered a denomination by protestants who want to justify their reformationists beliefs.

I never considered it a denomination that would be acknowledging their false belief system of works associated salvation...

 

[Rick Otto]

The Catholic Church denies denominational status in an attempt to justify their religious monopoly & imperialism.

 

[tadoflamb]

This is awesome.

 

[Canaan-84]

One doesn't need the extra books in the Bible to interpret Daniel or Revelation and neither would the Jews probably.

Ezekiel 38:22 "And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [Revelation 16:21 and 20:9]

Luke 12:49 Fire I came to be casting upon the Land and any I am willing if already it was kindled.

Revelation 8:5 And has taken, the messenger, the franckincensor, and he crams-full it out of the Fire of the Altar. And he casts it into the Land and became thunders and sounds and lightnings and quaking

Reve 20:9 And they ascended on the breadth of the Land and they surround the camp of the holy-ones and the city, the having been loved. And descended Fire from the God out of the Heaven and it devoured them.

What does that have to do with the deutro books? The other member was talking about how we use books that are false, but I posted that the apostles used the canon that contained the deutro books, so there's nothing wrong with them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What does that have to do with the deutro books? The other member was talking about how we use books that are false, but I posted that the apostles used the canon that contained the deutro books, so there's nothing wrong with them.

Did that include the book of Enoch? I read thru that book once almost 5 years ago and the only thing that really interested me was the 8 weeks and only because the number 8 is significant in the Bible, at least in my view.

Acts 7:8 And He gives him covenant of circumcision: and thus he generates the Isaac, and circumcised him to the Day, the Eighth; and Isaac the Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.

Revelation 17:11 And the wild-beast which was, and not is , even he an Eighth is, and out of the seven is, and into perdition going away

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6895192&page=4
Enoch and the 8 weeks

 

[Canaan-84]

Did that include the book of Enoch? I read thru that book once almost 5 years ago and the only thing that really interested me was the 8 weeks and only because the number 8 is significant in the Bible, at least in my view.

Acts 7:8 And He gives him covenant of circumcision: and thus he generates the Isaac, and circumcised him to the Day, the Eighth; and Isaac the Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.

Revelation 17:11 And the wild-beast which was, and not is , even he an Eighth is, and out of the seven is, and into perdition going away

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6895192&page=4
Enoch and the 8 weeks

They used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) which is the same OT that Roman Catholics use.

 

[mont974x4]

Why don't we accept the Apocrypha? I think perhaps that we Protestants left something out of the Bible.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]

Concerning the books of the Apocrypha, they were never accepted by the Jewish community, nor by the Church at large, as being inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic Church make them part of the canon, because it helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. But it was never part of those Scriptures accepted either by Jews or by the larger believing Church.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet the New Testament never categorized the books of the Apocrypha as "Scripture." When the New Testament talks about Scripture, it only deals with the same three-fold division as found in the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The rabbis never quote from the Apocrypha as divine authority. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as divine authority. In fact, what was considered "Scripture" clearly excluded the Apocrypha from the perspective of both the Jewish community and the Messianic community of the New Testament. While the early Jewish believers saw the writings of the Apostles as "Scripture," and the Old Testament as "Scripture," the Apocrypha was never accepted as such.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Furthermore, the Apocrypha makes a lot of contradictory statements and it does not hold up to the historical, archeological, and harmonious scrutiny as do the other books of the Bible. It is not true that "we Protestants left something out." It is only that the Catholic Church included it, and rather late in the game at that. The Apocrypha, like Josephus and the writings of the Church fathers, is valuable for historical reference and historical backgrounds to the events in Scripture. It includes, of course, the Books of Maccabees – historical but not inspired books that record many of the events that brought about the Feast of Chanukah. But, again, the Apocrypha is no more inspired than Josephus or the Church fathers [/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.ariel.org/qa.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) which is the same OT that Roman Catholics use.

Then how come the RCs cannot interpret Revelation with it

Reve 16:16 And he/it together-assembled/sunagagein <4863> (5629) them into the place, the being called to Hebrew armageddwn

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out to deceive the nations, the in the Four Corners of the Land, the Gog/gwg <1136> and Magog/magwg <3098>, , to be together-assembling/sunagagein <4863> (5629) them into the battle, of which the Number of them as the Sand of the Sea.[Ezekiel 7:1-2]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Do the Catholics believe the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are the same event? Yes or no. Thanks

Originally Posted by SpiritualAntiseptic
I don't believe the Church has an official position on that.

 

[Canaan-84]

Why don't we accept the Apocrypha? I think perhaps that we Protestants left something out of the Bible.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]

Concerning the books of the Apocrypha, they were never accepted by the Jewish community, nor by the Church at large, as being inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic Church make them part of the canon, because it helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. But it was never part of those Scriptures accepted either by Jews or by the larger believing Church.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet the New Testament never categorized the books of the Apocrypha as "Scripture." When the New Testament talks about Scripture, it only deals with the same three-fold division as found in the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The rabbis never quote from the Apocrypha as divine authority. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as divine authority. In fact, what was considered "Scripture" clearly excluded the Apocrypha from the perspective of both the Jewish community and the Messianic community of the New Testament. While the early Jewish believers saw the writings of the Apostles as "Scripture," and the Old Testament as "Scripture," the Apocrypha was never accepted as such.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Furthermore, the Apocrypha makes a lot of contradictory statements and it does not hold up to the historical, archeological, and harmonious scrutiny as do the other books of the Bible. It is not true that "we Protestants left something out." It is only that the Catholic Church included it, and rather late in the game at that. The Apocrypha, like Josephus and the writings of the Church fathers, is valuable for historical reference and historical backgrounds to the events in Scripture. It includes, of course, the Books of Maccabees – historical but not inspired books that record many of the events that brought about the Feast of Chanukah. But, again, the Apocrypha is no more inspired than Josephus or the Church fathers [/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.ariel.org/qa.htm

Did you not read what I posted? The Jews did not have a set canon until 100 CE, before that there were groups of Jews that used the protestant canon (39 books), those that used the RCC one (46 books) while others only used the first 5 books. The article I posted discusses all of that. Also, the Church did not add them they were chosen during the first few councils in the 300s when the Orthodox Church was still one with the Roman Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Did you not read what I posted? The Jews did not have a set canon until 100 CE, before that there were groups of Jews that used the protestant canon (39 books), those that used the RCC one (46 books) while others only used the first 5 books. The article I posted discusses all of that. Also, the Church did not add them they were chosen during the first few councils in the 300s when the Orthodox Church was still one with the Roman Church.

The Jews still mainly read just the first 5 books of the OC.

2 Corin 3:14 But was hardened/epwrwqh <4456> (5681) the minds of them. For until the today day, the same covering upon the reading of the Old Covenant is remaining, no being up-covered/un-veiled That In Christ it is being-taken-away

Mark 3:5 And looking about them with wrath, together-sorrowing on the hardness of their heart, He is saying to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand"!. And he stretches out it and his hand was restored as the other.

 

[Canaan-84]

The Jews still mainly read just the first 5 books of the OC.

2 Corin 3:14 But was hardened/epwrwqh <4456> (5681) the minds of them. For until the today day, the same covering upon the reading of the Old Covenant is remaining, no being up-covered/un-veiled That In Christ it is being-taken-away

Mark 3:5 And looking about them with wrath, together-sorrowing on the hardness of their heart, He is saying to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand"!. And he stretches out it and his hand was restored as the other.

There were groups that used different amounts of books because there was no set canon though. Also, the Council where Rabbis determined the 39 books is the same council that rejected the New Testament. So, protestants are following a council that rejected the New Testament. It's believed the deutro books were rejected by Jews because it contained strong prophecies of Jesus.

 

[mont974x4]

The rcc added books that were rejected by Jews and protestants because of contradictions and other issues. I think I posted a link about that earlier today.