Sincere Question

[KennySe]

Actually, the Protestant bible is different - some versions are missing 7 books that were a part of the original canon - which is the version Catholics use.

That's what I was going to reply with.
The Catholic Bible does not have extra books; the Catholic Bible has all the books it has always had since the Canon of BOTH Testaments was determined.

 

[secretdawn]

JUDITH! there is a book after a woman, you have to excuse me I am not very informed on the bible, i am still reading Mathew

 

[Polycarp1]

I'll just add one thing to the mix: the title "Supreme Pontiff" which is used of the Pope is a translation of Pontifex Maximus, the Latin, which means "greatest bridge-builder" (the "pont-" element does mean "bridge" but a "pontifex" is a bridge builder, not a bridge). For reasons I don't understand, this was the title of the top man in the hierarchy of the old Roman pagan religion during the days of the Republic and early Empire. It was awarded to the Pope as Patriarch of the West and chief Patriarch of the church, in succession to Peter, by an early Christian Emperor (memory says Constantine the Great, but I won't swear by that), as Christianity replaced the Pagan beliefs as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Though the Empire is over 1500 years gone, the Pope still holds that title in token of his job to help build the bridge between God and man which Christ's Atonement first constructed, but which needs to be built anew for each human being.

 

[secretdawn]

so these extra books, why were they taken out again, and i don't think i know what you mean by cannon or cannonize...

 

[secretdawn]

I'll just add one thing to the mix: the title "Supreme Pontiff" which is used of the Pope is a translation of Pontifex Maximus, the Latin, which means "greatest bridge-builder" (the "pont-" element does mean "bridge" but a "pontifex" is a bridge builder, not a bridge). For reasons I don't understand, this was the title of the top man in the hierarchy of the old Roman pagan religion during the days of the Republic and early Empire. It was awarded to the Pope as Patriarch of the West and chief Patriarch of the church, in succession to Peter, by an early Christian Emperor (memory says Constantine the Great, but I won't swear by that), as Christianity replaced the Pagan beliefs as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Though the Empire is over 1500 years gone, the Pope still holds that title in token of his job to help build the bridge between God and man which Christ's Atonement first constructed, but which needs to be built anew for each human being.

so he isn't THE bridge, but he helps build each persons bridge...and perhaps an individuals relationship with Christ is the bridge...? so he helps people develop their relationship with christ (the bridge to heaven) stronger? does that make sense or am I off here...

 

[Bastoune]

so these extra books, why were they taken out again, and i don't think i know what you mean by cannon or cannonize...

By the Jews, they were removed because they contained too many Messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus (see previous page) and plus, only the Greek texts exists (the original Hebrew texts had long disappeared, though some portions of some books in Aramaic and Hebrew have been found).

In Christiandom, it was Martin Luther who removed them from his canon (collection of books) because they contained theology that did not jive with his interpretation of the Bible. (It's easy to be sola scriptura if you choose the scriptura!) Of course, Luther also wanted James, Hebrews and Revelation out of the Bible but he was advised to leave the NT Canon alone.

 

[Benedicta00]

so he isn't THE bridge, but he helps build each persons bridge...and perhaps an individuals relationship with Christ is the bridge...? so he helps people develop their relationship with christ (the bridge to heaven) stronger? does that make sense or am I off here...

What he does is from the grace given to him by God, make sure we are not lead down the wrong bridge. The Church’s job is to give us the truth straight up and the grace to follow that truth, the rest is up to us.

 

[secretdawn]

By the Jews, they were removed because they contained too many Messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus (see previous page) and plus, only the Greek texts exists (the original Hebrew texts had long disappeared, though some portions of some books in Aramaic and Hebrew have been found).

In Christiandom, it was Martin Luther who removed them from his canon (collection of books) because they contained theology that did not jive with his interpretation of the Bible. (It's easy to be sola scriptura if you choose the scriptura!) Of course, Luther also wanted James, Hebrews and Revelation out of the Bible but he was advised to leave the NT Canon alone.

but that is wrong...that was what God wanted us to know and we need to know it...and I have always wanted to read and list the old testement prophesies of Jesus, then go through the NT and find them...

 

[Polycarp1]

so these extra books, why were they taken out again, and i don't think i know what you mean by cannon or cannonize...

Well, imagine we had no standard on what is in the Bible today, and the church is faced with a collection of books: Genesis, Isaiah, Micah, Baruch, Tobit, the Gospel according to John, Paul's letter to the Galatians, the Infancy Gospel attributed to Thomas, Pilgrim's Progress, the Book of Mormon, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Prayer of Jabez, the Fioretti of St. Francis, the Dark Night of the Soul, etc.

Some of these obviously belong in the Bible and others do not. So somebody with authority needs to define exactly which ones do and which do not. Making that definition is canonization or "defining the canon of Scripture."

Here's what happened, in a nutshell. Prior to the time of Jesus, Jews settled out from the Holy Land into most of the Greek-speaking world, and on into the Roman Empire. The Scriptures, mostly written in Hebrew, which were common to them were translated into Greek at the behest of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the King of Egypt, for the benefit of his Greek-speaking Jewish subjects. This collection is called the Septuagint, after the legendary seventy scholars who made the translation. This constitutes the Old Testament as it's known to the Orthodox Church today.

During the period beginning just before Christ's birth and ending about AD 100, the Jews of Palestine excluded from what they considered the Bible all those books that were not extant in Hebrew, leaving in two books that were partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic.

The early church selected from the various writings the books that appeared to be telling the truth about Jesus and God's work through Him, as opposed to pious fables and bizarre polemic doctrines, and established a collection that constitutes the New Testament. (Except for the Ethiopian Copts and the Nestorian Assyrians, we all hold the same New Testament in common.)

Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin ("the Vulgate"), was inclined to follow the lead of those Jewish scholars, but acceded to the wishes of the church leadership. But he wrote extensively on what was properly part of the Scriptures, and his writings survived.

So we have Bibles in Greek and Latin that include all the Old Testament books included by the Seventy, and the New Testament as we all know it. This held true throughout the Middle Ages.

Along comes the Reformation. Luther and Calvin, following the Jews of the Holy Land and Jerome, exclude from their collection the books in the Septuagint that were not then available in Hebrew. In counteraction against this, the Council of Trent finally and definitively defines as canonical all the books that had been considered Scripture from the early days of the church -- omitting three items usually included in the Septuagint, the two Books of Esdras which effectively duplicate Ezra, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Nobody added anything. The kindest thing that you can say about Luther and Calvin is that they continued the "weeding" process which the church had begun back in its earliest days. But most Catholics won't be that generous to them!

The Anglican church, to which I belong, recognizes the "Protestant" Old Testament as fully Scripture and accepts the other books from the Septuagint, commonly called the deuterocanonical books by Catholics and "the Apocrypha" by Protestants, as a sort of "second-class Scripture" worthy to be read for example of life and instruction in morals but not to be taken as the foundation of doctrine. And the Methodists follow us, though they tend not to get into the argument much.

But the claim that "the Catholic Church added books to the Bible" is fraudulent -- unless you by it mean that they added the New Testament to the original Jewish collection, waaaaay back in the earliest days of the church, which is never what anybody means when they say that!

 

[secretdawn]

so these dueterocananical books...that isn't dueteronomy then...right...ok this is really confusing...lol...
so the cannonizing was assuring the books were divinely inspired and not some dumb-dumb mussing things up then?

 

[KC Catholic]

but that is wrong...that was what God wanted us to know and we need to know it...and I have always wanted to read and list the old testement prophesies of Jesus, then go through the NT and find them...

Your point is exactly why many people, including myself have converted to Catholicism. I don't want to get on a soap box here, but it concerned me that individuals were making decisions as to what the bible should contain, teachings that were valid, etc., which really, really bothered me. If one person changed the working in Romans, wanted to remove several books from the New Testament, etc., what else was missing?

And the item that deeply troubled me - how could I be a member of a church that was based on those facts as we stated above. Again, this is not a rail against non-Catholics, because I was one once. But its part of the awakening I went through during my conversion.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

but that is wrong...that was what God wanted us to know and we need to know it...and I have always wanted to read and list the old testement prophesies of Jesus, then go through the NT and find them...

Here is probably the best prophecy of Jesus' death that you will find and it is in the deuterocanon book of Wisdom. Here it is:

Wisdom 2

12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. 14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, 15 Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. 23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

so these dueterocananical books...that isn't dueteronomy then...right...ok this is really confusing...lol...
so the cannonizing was assuring the books were divinely inspired and not some dumb-dumb mussing things up then?

Yep!

And when I discovered that the same Early Church councils that gave us the New Testament also gave us the Old Testament with these 7 books in thier respective places within the Old Testament (not separately from it) that I aked myself WHY was I not using the SAME Scriptures the Early Church used? Why was I using an "abridged" version of the scriptures?

I realized I had been cheated out of the full scriptures the Early Church used and immediately went out and bought me a Catholic Bible with ALL the Old Testament books in it in their proper places!!


Peace in Him!

 

[secretdawn]

ok, so the rest of the churches just blow off these books?

 

[thereselittleflower]

ok, so the rest of the churches just blow off these books?

Yeah, basically

The Protestant Churhes do . . .

The Orthodox have then, plus I think 2 others . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Bastoune]

I don't think they even understand why they are not in the Bible. The Orthodox, the Catholics, and some Anglican groups uphold them, the Protestants do not. But I honestly think that most Protestant churches have no idea what the deuterocanonical books are, what they contain... they've just assumed, following Luther's tradition, that they must not been good.

 

[ChoirDir]

These books are known in the Orthodox Church as the "longer canon" rather than the "Apocrypha," as they are known among the Protestants -- are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.

These books -- Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh -- are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.

The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).

 

[ps139]

ok, so the rest of the churches just blow off these books?

As far as I understand, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones who believe they are inspired. I think some other churches consider them "good reading" (Anglican, Methodist), and there are a few that will say they are worthless.

 

[Polycarp1]

As far as I understand, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones who believe they are inspired. I think some other churches consider them "good reading" (Anglican, Methodist), and there are a few that will say they are worthless.

What I said up above about reading them (including in the Lessons at the Eucharist) for example of life and instruction in morals but not founding doctrine on them is a close paraphrase of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, and I believe every branch of Anglicanism, and also of the United Methodist Church in the U.S. (I don't know what bearing they may hold in English Methodism). In any case, they're absolutely Scripture for us (and for the Methodists, though they make very little use of them).

 

[secretdawn]

i notice the catholic church is very ritualistic. can someone explain some things? Like the sit stand kneel sit stand kneel that always goes on, the crossing of yourself and why read in latin?

also is the catholic church a decendent of the jewish synogoge, except they accepted Christ. do many of the rituals have something to do with that?