I was raised Catholic, though I never remember learing anything about this at CCD.

Why do you think that the Catholic church rejected the canon view on what the Bible is and what it should be? To me the 4 main points of canon makes sense. I am trying to understand, from different people and sources, why it didn't work for the Catholic church.

Thanks!

Which canon?  Link?

Thanks,

Shok

"Catholic church rejected the cannon view on what the Bible is and what it should be?"

First of all, it's not "Catholic church" but "Catholic Church" (capitalized).

Secondly, WE are the ones who preserved the scriptures and determined the "Canon" (1 "n"). "Cannon" is a weapon. "Canon" is an approved, authoratitive list of something.

Thirdly, WE took our Canon of Scripture from fellow Christians, NOT from Jews post 110AD who met at their council of Jamnia to delete such books that they found annoying (which Christians had been using to good effect in winning Jewish converts). 1400 years later Luther (who studied scripture for all of 2 years prior to being named "doctor") decided unilaterally to accept the Jewish "canon" over the traditional Christian one for the same reason modern day JWs reject the classic definition of the word "cross" and claim it was a "pole": market differentation. If you're selling something it's important to stand out from your competitor in some fashion.

Accordingly, the Bible has 73 books, not 66. If your Bible doesn't have 73 books then the question is...on whose authority did your ancestors jettison those 6 books that had been accepted by Christians for 1000 years?

Quoted: <snip>

a zingy +1

Quoted: I must've nodded off when we covered that...

Same here.

Quoted: "Catholic church rejected the cannon view on what the Bible is and what it should be?" First of all, it's not "Catholic church" but "Catholic Church" (capitalized). Secondly, WE are the ones who preserved the scriptures and determined the "Canon" (1 "n"). "Cannon" is a weapon. "Canon" is an approved, authoratitive list of something. Thirdly, WE took our Canon of Scripture from fellow Christians, NOT from Jews post 110AD who met at their council of Jamnia to delete such books that they found annoying (which Christians had been using to good effect in winning Jewish converts). 1400 years later Luther (who studied scripture for all of 2 years prior to being named "doctor") decided unilaterally to accept the Jewish "canon" over the traditional Christian one for the same reason modern day JWs reject the classic definition of the word "cross" and claim it was a "pole": market differentation. If you're selling something it's important to stand out from your competitor in some fashion. Accordingly, the Bible has 73 books, not 66. If your Bible doesn't have 73 books then the question is...on whose authority did your ancestors jettison those 6 books that had been accepted by Christians for 1000 years?

I'm still trying to figure this out.  The only canon I've ever read was the Catholic Church's canon.  What little I've read of it I agreed with.  I've never read the Jewish canon and I guess thats the one the Catholic Church rejected?

By who's authority was the Apocrypha, which was written during the 400 yrs of silence, put in the bible?

BTW it was accepted by Christians for 1000 years only because the Latin Vulgate was all they had for 1000 years.  Very few Christians read Latin.  As soon as translations into other languages began, in defience of the Catholic Church, the Apocrypha was omitted for obvious reasons.

Shok

"Apocrypha, which was written during the 400 yrs of silence"

There are others books in there as well...The Gospel of Tim, Mary..etc...More letters of the Epistles..etc...

Quoted: Quoted: "Catholic church rejected the cannon view on what the Bible is and what it should be?" <snip> I'm still trying to figure this out.  The only canon I've ever read was the Catholic Church's canon.  What little I've read of it I agreed with.  I've never read the Jewish canon and I guess thats the one the Catholic Church rejected? By who's authority was the Apocrypha, which was written during the 400 yrs of silence, put in the bible?

The One Church that existed from the time of the apostles onward.

BTW it was accepted by Christians for 1000 years only because the Latin Vulgate was all they had for 1000 years.  Very few Christians read Latin.  As soon as translations into other languages began, in defience of the Catholic Church, the Apocrypha was omitted for obvious reasons. Shok

Wrong. Very few christians...read...period. Not 'read Latin.' Regardless of the native tongue it would have done precious little good to write and illustrate a Bible in the vernacular when no one could read it. Its not like they could have cranked out a few thousand copies anyway. The illustration of a text in any language with quill on vellum was a tremendously time consuming and expensive process.

Yes, yes, always 'in defiance of the Catholic Church' the REAL Christians working below the radar of history for 1500 years stepped forth and blah blah blah. Same old Catholic Church conspiracy drivel.

And what, by your learned recollections, are the 'obvious reasons' for omission by Luther?

Quoted: "Apocrypha, which was written during the 400 yrs of silence" There are others books in there as well...The Gospel of Tim, Mary..etc...More letters of the Epistles..etc...

I could be quite wrong, but I don't think there's an Gospel of Timothy..

You might be refering to the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps? There is also the Gospel of Thomas the Contender which is different from the Gospel of Thomas. There is also the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene and those two are different.

But I don't think any of those were a part of the Catholic Apochrypha...

I could be quite wrong, but I don't think there's an Gospel of Timothy

I am wrong...As I have known to be on a great many times in the past

Though not exhaustive this is a good site to show most of them...

I think one thing we forget sometimes is what the original meaning of the word 'catholic' meant.

To Catholics 'apocrypha' means those books not in th Catholic canon of scripture, many of them listed in the link noted in the above posts.

To Protestants 'apocrypha' means those books that Luther removed from the Catholic canon namely: Wisdom, Maccabees, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Judith and several scattered verses in the Old Testament.

I hate threads like this.

Quoted: I hate threads like this.

Why? I can guess or assume, but I'd rather not.

I don't know about this site, but it has a balanced view of the story of the Apocrypha (a protestant term only)...

http://www.probe.org/content/view/25/77/

and

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp

Basically the idea is that the Catholic Church decided the Canon with the old Jewish Old Testament before a Jewish council decided to change their own writings.

It was good for 1000 years until some dude named Luther decided he'd change the course of history and decide to take it upon himself to change the Bible itself.  

Among the changes to the bible was the changing in Romans 3:28 to include the word "alone" (sole fide) to justify his stance that it is by faith alone that we are saved.  He also turned everything on its head by introducing the idea that the only way to study and worship Christ is in scripture (sola scriptura) even though Christ's teachings were ALL done before the New Testament was ever written and people had passed his teachings down through tradition (a very large part of the Catholic Church)

The worst part is that Luther himself was kind of a messed up guy and was known to have dillusions...

I myself would follow the teachings of the authority that has been there since the beginning and hashed out what the Bible is 1300 years before some German guy decided to change it, but that's just me

Quoted: Quoted: I hate threads like this. Why? I can guess or assume, but I'd rather not.

It sucks when you want discusssion and get lecture.

It only serves to reinforce stereotypes.

Quoted: And what, by your learned recollections, are the 'obvious reasons' for omission by Luther?

Luther's german translation had the Apocrypha.  He also prefaced it with "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."  Its good to read because its a historical document more than anything.  The Apocrypha wasn't omitted until 1629 in the KJV.

More info.

Shok

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate threads like this. Why? I can guess or assume, but I'd rather not. It sucks when you want discusssion and get lecture. It only serves to reinforce stereotypes.

Flesh out your answer, man. Is this how one aquires an 18,000+ post count?

First, and I mean no offense to the thread author. he seemed to ask for discussion, but the phrasing of the original question was full of misinformation, mislabeling and a generally negative spin on the Catholic churches involvement in the Canon of scripture. In fact, he had it completely ass backward. I don't interpret posts like that in a benign fashion at all. In fact, I feel a duty to correct it when I can. A more palatable way to phrase the query and invite discussion would be something along these lines:

Why does a Catholic Bible contain more books than a Protestant Bible?

Suppose the original post had been phrased as JusAdBellum concluded in his 'lecture.'

"...the Bible has 73 books, not 66. If your Bible doesn't have 73 books then the question is...on whose authority did your ancestors jettison those 6 books that had been accepted by Christians for 1000 years?"

Would you feel a need to respond to that phrasing in a thread topic? Maybe you wouldn't.

But, of course, after the slant of the original post was thoroughly digested and then disassembled via the 'lecture,' our friend QShok chimes in with a completely false statement that shores up the original topic. No regard for the previous explanation. Remarkably, it was  the exact same way he dismissed the explanation of why Catholics don't worship idols in my 'church desecration' thread, and then piled on with his own falsehoods about what Catholics do and believe. Would that prompt you to respond? Maybe not. And BTW QShok, you replied to my post here, but you did not answer the question.

Well, obviously it bugs the piss out of me when a fundamentalist posts a complete misunderstanding of Catholic thought or believe as truth. And usually one or two more will give the approving nod. But any response to that falsehood by a Catholic is suddenly viewed as a lecture or a combative response.

Quoted: Flesh out your answer, man. Is this how one aquires an 18,000+ post count? First, and I mean no offense to the thread author. he seemed to ask for discussion, but the phrasing of the original question was full of misinformation, mislabeling and a generally negative spin on the Catholic churches involvement in the Canon of scripture. In fact, he had it completely ass backward. I don't interpret posts like that in a benign fashion at all. In fact, I feel a duty to correct it when I can. A more palatable way to phrase the query and invite discussion would be something along these lines: Why does a Catholic Bible contain more books than a Protestant Bible? Suppose the original post had been phrased as JusAdBellum concluded in his 'lecture.' "...the Bible has 73 books, not 66. If your Bible doesn't have 73 books then the question is...on whose authority did your ancestors jettison those 6 books that had been accepted by Christians for 1000 years?" Would you feel a need to respond to that phrasing in a thread topic? Maybe you wouldn't. But, of course, after the slant of the original post was thoroughly digested and then disassembled via the 'lecture,' our friend QShok chimes in with a completely false statement that shores up the original topic. No regard for the previous explanation. Remarkably, it was  the exact same way he dismissed the explanation of why Catholics don't worship idols in my church desecration thread, and then piled on with his own falsehoods about what Catholics do and believe. Would that prompt you to respond? Maybe not. And BTW QShok, you replied to my post here, but you did not answer the question. Well, obviously it bugs the piss out of me when a fundamentalist posts a complete misunderstanding of Catholic thought or believe as truth. And usually one or two more will give the approving nod. But any response to that falsehood by a Catholic is suddenly viewed as a lecture or a combative response.

A big +1 and "Amen Brother"!

Try reading this.

Oh boy, now you've gone off and linked to a site and a post that makes far too much sense. IBTL!

Just to show how jaundiced I got, I was fully expecting to open an anti-Catholic site "when what should my wondering eyes did appear? But ENVOY poping up, so familiar and dear."

It is important to note that our 73 books don't contradict themselves and we do tend to read scripture not as machine-gunning bullet points taken in isolation but as pieces of a puzzle.... each piece is connected to all the others.

Quoting Matthew to zing Catholics for calling priests' "father" instantly means Mathew HIMSELF (and Our Lord himself) is guilty as both call other men "father" all the time.... Jesus' parable about the prodigal son mentioned a father...and he himself quotes the 4th commandment - 'honor thy father and thy mother' with approbation.... ergo, whatever that 'proof text' means in Matthew, it's NOT a categorical Divine ban on calling one's father, "father" or a husband who has a son "father".

So caution is needed when making an interpretation about any verse as meaning X (especially when your hope is to take Catholicism down a peg). We've been reading these scriptures for 2000 years, our best and brightest have written biblical commentaries all that time... and we, humble Catholic laymen get to cherry pick from among these works - from the Apostles to the early Church Fathers, St.Augustine to Ambrose and the bishops and saints, doctors and theologians, councils and Popes....all contributing in their own way to the promotion of truth and life.

When Protestants grapple with celibacy we can bring up the regional council of Elmyra - Spain, circa 500 which mentioned Celibacy as already at that time being an 'ancient custom'. We can harken to St Augustine's own writings in the 400s whereby Bishops and certainly presbyteroi were celibate, not married..... IOW, we can look at what other Christians thought based on the same (if not more) scripture and cultural understandings evident to them.

Like kids in a candy shop or Marines in an arms bazaar.... not needing to reinvent the theological wheel every generation gives us a big head start. Which is why much of apologetics work really is unfair.... as unfair to fight a battleship vs a Swift boat.

Which is why most protestant apologists debate Catholic laymen who went to CCD rather than the Pontifical Gregorian University.... and most fallen away Catholics are from folk who never systematically studied their own faith whereas literally hundreds of Protestant pastors have become Catholic lay men this past decade.... Our C team members defect to Protestantism, whereas their A team come over to ours....

Phenomenologically this means.... the more you study scriptures and Christianity the more Catholic you become whereas the less you study scripture, history and logic, the more prone a Catholic is to leave the Church and join other Christian denominations en route to ultimately abandoning the Christian faith entirely.

The above is my experience and opinion.

I don't intend to insult the intelligence of the many fine protestant folk here who have proven themselves excellent debate sparing partners. As usual, all arguments aside it's in the trenches of living out the Beatitudes that we find our greatest union and the Holy Spirit's action, not in cold arguments over this or that interpetation or hermenutic.

As the Pope (JP2) mentioned and I believe.... this past century was full of martyrs for Christ that included protestants and Catholics...meaning, we believe Heaven is full of Protestants as well as Catholics. According to us all y'all are Baptised members of Christ's Church albeit imperfectly catechised and unfortunately ignorant (not stupid) of the wealth of grace Christ gives his followers through his Church.

But these arguments do have a place. They help us to re-think our positions and what makes us so sure about ourselves or our beliefs.

First, and I mean no offense to the thread author. he seemed to ask for discussion, but the phrasing of the original question was full of misinformation, mislabeling and a generally negative spin on the Catholic churches involvement in the Canon of scripture.

Your own baggage is makes you think I was trying to put a negitive spin on the catholic church. Next time, I will seek you out, IM what I am thinking of posting prior to, to make sure it passes your litmus test.

I know what I have learned the reason why catholics rejected the canon, so far, I am glad I am getting more info on this from other sources. Thinking that I was trying to insult catholics is about as correct as your views on Luther and the great work he did.

arowneragain made a very valid point.

Quoted: First, and I mean no offense to the thread author. he seemed to ask for discussion, but the phrasing of the original question was full of misinformation, mislabeling and a generally negative spin on the Catholic churches involvement in the Canon of scripture. Your own baggage is makes you think I was trying to put a negitive spin on the catholic church. Next time, I will seek you out, IM what I am thinking of posting prior to, to make sure it passes your litmus test. I know what I have learned the reason why catholics rejected the canon, so far, I am glad I am getting more info on this from other sources. Thinking that I was trying to insult catholics is about as correct as your views on Luther and the great work he did. arowneragain made a very valid point.

Read my post again, please.

My baggage is the spread of misinformation about Catholic belief. Nothing else. And by your original post you claim to have been raised Catholic, yet your fund of knowledge is woefully incorrect on the development of the Canon of Scripture.

Did you read this from JusAdBellum:

Which is why most protestant apologists debate Catholic laymen who went to CCD rather than the Pontifical Gregorian University.... and most fallen away Catholics are from folk who never systematically studied their own faith whereas literally hundreds of Protestant pastors have become Catholic lay men this past decade.... Our C team members defect to Protestantism, whereas their A team come over to ours.... Phenomenologically this means.... the more you study scriptures and Christianity the more Catholic you become whereas the less you study scripture, history and logic, the more prone a Catholic is to leave the Church and join other Christian denominations en route to ultimately abandoning the Christian faith entirely.

Seems to fit in this instance as well.

I stated as a preface that no offense was intended. Apologies are in order on my part if my interpretation of your original phrasing have led us elsewhere. But based on the above quote (yours, not JusAdBellum) do you now intend to malign the Catholic canon?

And, for the record, arowneragain, made no point. He made a statement. I'd love to hear more, though.

Quoted: As the Pope (JP2) mentioned and I believe.... this past century was full of martyrs for Christ that included protestants and Catholics...meaning, we believe Heaven is full of Protestants as well as Catholics

I've never gotten a sense of reciprocation from the posters in this forum.

Quoted: Quoted: As the Pope (JP2) mentioned and I believe.... this past century was full of martyrs for Christ that included protestants and Catholics...meaning, we believe Heaven is full of Protestants as well as Catholics I've never gotten a sense of reciprocation from the posters in this forum.

I LOVE YOU MAN!  The pope too, no joke.

Shok

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As the Pope (JP2) mentioned and I believe.... this past century was full of martyrs for Christ that included protestants and Catholics...meaning, we believe Heaven is full of Protestants as well as Catholics I've never gotten a sense of reciprocation from the posters in this forum. I LOVE YOU MAN!  The pope too, no joke. Shok

Let's see now....Jesus, mom, dad, wife, kids, QShok. The list is growing!

Quoted: Try reading this.

Well that rather slams two torpedos into the Protestant stern. Thanks for the link.

Let me ask this:

Why is it that no writers in the NT quote anything from the Apocrypha?

Myth 1

The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.

The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1564-1565) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there."

This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on.

The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

Are these 'disputed' books available for reading online anywhere?

Quoted: Are these 'disputed' books available for reading online anywhere?

Sure.  the Catholic (The first and actual real) version of the bible:

www.usccb.org/nab/bible/

Quoted: Quoted: Are these 'disputed' books available for reading online anywhere? Sure.  the Catholic (The first and actual real) version of the bible:

Classy.

Quoted: Quoted: Are these 'disputed' books available for reading online anywhere? Sure.  the Catholic (The first and actual real) version of the bible..

Amazing. It will never cease to amaze/ dumbfound me....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are these 'disputed' books available for reading online anywhere? Sure.  the Catholic (The first and actual real) version of the bible.. Amazing. It will never cease to amaze/ dumbfound me....

It wasn't meant to harm anyone.  I was just stating that the Catholics are the ones responsible for the Canonical Bible which was put together prior to it being changed by Luther.  I don't think that protestants have a "lesser" version of the bible.  It was mostly a tongue in cheek answer that was meant to be funny/sarcastic.   I was serious about that you could read it at the site I linked to though.

Edit:  I should add that I have this conversation with my family every once in awhile and we usually throw some sarcastic pieces in there.  I forgot that everyone doesn't communicate like that.

To take any books out of the Bible and still make the untenable claim that it is in fact the Bible is as nonsensical as taking all the books but one out of the Bible and still claim it is the Bible. In fact it is not, it it only part of the Bible.

Quoted: Let me ask this: Why is it that no writers in the NT quote anything from the Apocrypha?

Apparently you didn't bother to click on the link that LadyLiberty provided you...


ETA:  nevermind.  Belloc cut/pasted it already.  Myth #2 will answer your question

Quoted: Quoted: First, and I mean no offense to the thread author. he seemed to ask for discussion, but the phrasing of the original question was full of misinformation, mislabeling and a generally negative spin on the Catholic churches involvement in the Canon of scripture. Your own baggage is makes you think I was trying to put a negitive spin on the catholic church. Next time, I will seek you out, IM what I am thinking of posting prior to, to make sure it passes your litmus test. I know what I have learned the reason why catholics rejected the canon, so far, I am glad I am getting more info on this from other sources. Thinking that I was trying to insult catholics is about as correct as your views on Luther and the great work he did. arowneragain made a very valid point. Read my post again, please. My baggage is the spread of misinformation about Catholic belief. Nothing else. And by your original post you claim to have been raised Catholic, yet your fund of knowledge is woefully incorrect on the development of the Canon of Scripture. Did you read this from JusAdBellum: Which is why most protestant apologists debate Catholic laymen who went to CCD rather than the Pontifical Gregorian University.... and most fallen away Catholics are from folk who never systematically studied their own faith whereas literally hundreds of Protestant pastors have become Catholic lay men this past decade.... Our C team members defect to Protestantism, whereas their A team come over to ours.... Phenomenologically this means.... the more you study scriptures and Christianity the more Catholic you become whereas the less you study scripture, history and logic, the more prone a Catholic is to leave the Church and join other Christian denominations en route to ultimately abandoning the Christian faith entirely. Seems to fit in this instance as well. I stated as a preface that no offense was intended. Apologies are in order on my part if my interpretation of your original phrasing have led us elsewhere. But based on the above quote (yours, not JusAdBellum) do you now intend to malign the Catholic canon? And, for the record, arowneragain, made no point. He made a statement. I'd love to hear more, though.

Hey, Ziti, why didn't you tell us you're in seminary?  Now we have a better idea of where you're getting this misinformation from.  Which seminary?

Quoted: Now we have a better idea of where you're getting this misinformation from.  Which seminary?

It wouldn't surprise me if Ziti decided to wait and answer that question when it was asked in a more mature fashion.




Listen, guys, I've tried as hard as anyone here to 'make nice' with the Catholics here.

Whether you like it or not, there was good reason for the Reformation.


Until you guys grow enough to accept that, throwing your little jokes into these threads is NOT helping matters.

Guys, I'd LOVE to discuss some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

I'd love to discuss the legitimacy of the disputed books of the Bible.

But there's not a snowball's chance of it ever happening if you guys don't drop the pretenses and jokes.

Have enough self-confidence to quit hiding behind your holier-than-thou attitude, and we might learn something from each other.

Quoted: Quoted: Now we have a better idea of where you're getting this misinformation from.  Which seminary? It wouldn't surprise me if Ziti decided to wait and answer that question when it was asked in a more mature fashion. Listen, guys, I've tried as hard as anyone here to 'make nice' with the Catholics here. Whether you like it or not, there was good reason for the Reformation. Until you guys grow enough to accept that, throwing your little jokes into these threads is NOT helping matters. Guys, I'd LOVE to discuss some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. I'd love to discuss the legitimacy of the disputed books of the Bible. But there's not a snowball's chance of it ever happening if you guys don't drop the pretenses and jokes. Have enough self-confidence to quit hiding behind your holier-than-thou attitude, and we might learn something from each other.

I do not doubt the sincerity of your statement or request. But others have made NO effort to 'make nice.' As I stated earlier, if it has ever happened it is exceedingly rare that a Catholic has come on this forum and started a thread that is offensive to or condemns Protestant thought. It is almost always the other way around. Then when a Catholic responds, suddenly we are 'attacking.' And that's complete BS.

Threads here usually go as follows:

Protestant 'A' posts a topic:
"Why do Catholics this, that or the other."

Catholic 'A' responds. "No, that's not correct. What we believe is this....(followed by scripture and/or cathechism - not as 'proof' but for explanatory purposes - .

Protestant 'B' chimes in: 'Yeah, I can't believe the Catholics do that.' Oblivious to, or ignoring, the initial response and explanation.

Then the fireworks begin.

I have never seen a Catholic poster hide behind anything. Holier-than-thou is a matter of opinion. Ultimately, the Catholic posts here are, IMO, self assured because we feel that we are backed up by the truth. From a personal standpoint, I have studied in multiple denominational settings in an attempt to 'discover' the truth for myself. And after a decade of study and discussion, I keep coming back to Catholicism. It all fits without effort.

You will also note that the more vitreolic exchanges usually occur in Catholic vs. X-Catholic debates. Those who have forfeited the faith of their fathers thru whatever means, tend to get nasty when confronted.

Ziti, if you're in seminary...IM me sometime. I spent years in Rome (though I'm a lay man).

The college I studied at had seminarians who were on a 14 to 15 year study plan BEFORE ordination (whereas your average Catholic priest has about 6 to 7 years of study and your average protestant minister 4 to 5...). I have about 11 years of study in various countries under my belt.

The above post is pretty good descriptively as well. Kudos.

It does seem like the moment we engage in sarcasm (or I state what is obvious to me) that 'the other side' ceased to follow the train of thought or argument or evidentiary trail and assumes the point of our post is pure ad hominem attacks.

Not so.

St Paul used sarcasm too on his readers in Galatians did he not? To rattle their cage, to get them to pay attention, to stir the pot, fire 'em up. That's where I'm coming from mostly. Not trying to insult people but get them to respond.

The Canon of 73 books was settled before Luther decided unilaterally to remove six books. So the question has to be, on what grounds did he do the removing?

As to books not quoted in the New Testament by Jesus or the apostles...as the Envoy article makes clear, persons in the New Testament quote things not found in the Canon (73 or 66 versions) without this meaning that those sources are canonical (such as Paul quoting Pagan poets). But then THIS argument on the Prot side ultimately goes back to sola scritura whereas the Catholics aren't so bound by that un-biblical doctrine...

Kinda like "cause the New Testament doesn't spell out the Church calendar, naming dates for the anniversaries of historical events such as Jesus' birthday, we shall not decide it to have been Dec.25th."

Why not? Does the New Testament specifically FORBID the CHURCH from deciding that it's OK to so commemorate Jesus' birthday? Paul was talking about Christians following PAGAN feasts, not Christians commemorating CHRISTIAN events....and the whole Jewish experience of reliving past events militates in favor of the early Church commemorating historical events too....

But then THIS ARGUMENT again boils down to Catholics accepting the teaching authority of the Church (basing ourselves almost entirely on SCRIPTURE FOR THIS, ESP. ACTS) to bind on earth or loosen on earth and reveal the Spirit's will for us whereas Protestants keep going back to "nope, if it's not spelled out in the New Testament then we can't do it".

So we go back and re-fight the whole sola scritura and sola fide thing, win and yet still have to confront the canards of "well sure, but look how evil Catholic popes in the 14th century were and look at all the scandals...so (sniff) I'm becoming Orthodox 'cause pride will keep me from admiting the Catholics are right dammit" or something along those lines j/k, sort of

As for me.... well I believe that Jesus Christ is alive. I've met him. I love him. I want to obey him. So I go to what HE SAID. And I read HIM SAYING that he'll be with the men upon whom HE is building HIS CHURCH forever, and that he promises to lead THEM in the truth...and yet these men have real teaching authority that others don't have. (and he definately doesn't say "go ye therefore and print my words into a book consisting of the following titles. Print ye and hand out to the illiterate masses. My Spirit will guide each soul indepedently to discover the infallible truth while each admits to not having the charism of infallibility...it's OK that this is a contradiction because faith is all that counts and reason is worthless").

Because time and time again OUR LORD doesn't preach sola scritura or sola fide when it would have been obviously the time for such a doctrine, I conclude that neither are his revelation for the world.

So, basing myself on HIS WORDS, I go to the men HE CHOSE. I read the history of this group of believers, going back to the days of the apostles to the present.... my reason, logic, etc. tells me that this particular group has far more probability of being THE group Jesus' promise to remain with pertains to... and this group happens to be 1 billion strong (although probably only half are actually active Catholics, the rest are "practicing" but not on the field of play) and is called "the Catholic Church".

I see the signs of this Church being catholic (everywhere on earth and in all centuries) and I re-read Our Lord's command "go...make disciples of all the nations..."

I look for apostolic succession because He promised "I will be with YOU always..."

Because He spoke of a single flock and shepherds to guide it and the Acts of the Apostles presents a single movement (called THE WAY) not wholly independent groups I look for a Church that esteems unity even though also 'catholic'.

And because Our Lord preached holiness and indeed gave us the power to be holy (not merely to 'look' holy....we're not snow covered dung heaps (that's unbiblical) but temples of the holy Spirit... I look for a Church that is holy.

And of all the churches and 'ecclesial communities' (redundant, I know) I see only the Catholic Church as having these 4 marks....plus the sign of near universal persecution.

It's not easy being a Catholic (especially in this country!) But then Jesus didn't promise his followers an easy road surrounded by nice folk. So paradoxically the fact that my parish isn't the funnest place to be and my fellow parishoners aren't the nicest folk either tells me that I'm where He is... It's not about me or us anyway but about obedience to His will.

So all kidding aside....it's about us obeying Jesus; and his command is that we love one another. Our struggle is to distinguish tough love from loveless toughness.

Well said, JusAdBellum!

The KJV was Edited by Sir Francis Bacon, and he did it athe request of King James, to give legitimacy and substance to his claim for the G*d-King connection.

Quoted: Quoted: Now we have a better idea of where you're getting this misinformation from.  Which seminary? It wouldn't surprise me if Ziti decided to wait and answer that question when it was asked in a more mature fashion.

Ziti believes that the Catholic Church rejected the Canon.  This is not correct information.  That is what misinformation, is, is it not?  Incorrect information?   And it is verifiable that what he claimed is indeed misinformation.  Thus, it's an objective statement of fact that, if he learned this at seminary, that we know where he got this misinformation.  There is nothing immature about pointing that out.

Listen, guys, I've tried as hard as anyone here to 'make nice' with the Catholics here. Whether you like it or not, there was good reason for the Reformation.

Except Luther didn't reform anything.  He revolted and rejected unchanged and unchanging teaching due to his understandable dislike for the abuses of devotions and people not living holy lives when they should have been.  There were many others who were working to reform the Church who did so without rejecting central teachings and starting their own religion in the process.  They remained faithful to the Church in humility.

Until you guys grow enough to accept that, throwing your little jokes into these threads is NOT helping matters.

I'm not throwing "little jokes" into anything.  You are coming across with a condescending tone, and that in itself makes it hard for us to listen to you.  Your very post here adds to the problem.  We accept that there were abuses and that priests were not leading the people in holiness, and that sin was in abundance, but none of that justifies Luther's rebellion.  What I don't understand is why you seem to think that we believe that everything was all rosy and wonderful and that Luther popped up out of the blue for no reason.

Have enough self-confidence to quit hiding behind your holier-than-thou attitude, and we might learn something from each other.

More condescending tone.  Until you know me, don't you dare go accusing me of having some "holier-than-thou attitude."  My walk with the Lord is my own to struggle with.  The closer I get to him, the more of my sin I see, and the more I realize just how far I have to go to attain sainthood.  I am sure of what I say, though, because I have studied Christian history of the early centuries, and have plenty of resources available to me that show me that what the early Christians taught, the Catholic Church teaches.  I am backed up by truth.  I don't have to rely on myself or my pastor to figure it out.  I've got 2,000 years of history to fall back on.  I spent time trying to debunk Catholicism, and ended up coming right around to admit that the Catholic Church is the one that Christ founded.  I have been attacked so many times with the same tired accusations of "You believe x" and "the Catholic Church does/did/says y," that I sometimes get tired of repeatedly explaining the same thing over and over again when people don't listen.

When peole hide where they are coming from, I tend to get very suspicious of their motives.  Asking questions out of genuine curiosity does not entail deliberately leaving out key information about a person's worldview.
"I was raised as a Catholic" can mean many things.  a) They still are, but don't know much, b) they still are but are considering leaving, or c) they have since left the Catholic Church and are now studying to be a pastor in a Christian faith that is by its nature opposed to Catholicism (otherwise they would all become Catholic)
"a" implies a willingness to accept the Church's teaching and authority, but they just don't know what it is.  "b" implies that one is willing to, but needs more convincing that it is correct.  "c" demonstrates a deliberate rejection of the Church's teaching authority.  How I respond to each is different, and when a person hides that, I become suspicious?  Do they genuinely want to know, or are they just trying to start an arguement/get ammo for going after uneducated Catholics/etc.?

Until you guys grow enough to accept that, quit hiding behind your holier-than-thou attitude

Remove the beam from your own eye first, then you can work on the 2X4 in mine (I've got way more than a splinter, unfortunately).