The vanishing bible

Catholic World News ^ | 11-19-2004

[Lilllabettt]

Thats right! I was shocked when I found that out. Like: The horror! The horror!

[JHavard]

The seven books reference Purgatory, praying to Saints, Our Lady, etc. etc. In short, the reason the seven books were removed were because these books contain many things that Protestants do not believe in - so they got rid of them.

So the Jews also removed them because they didn't believe in Purgatory or praying to saints also, is that what your saying?

If the Jews had used these apocrypha books to develop their doctrine prior to the Christians running with them, then they must have dropped them from their doctrine also, because there is no record of them ever believing in such things.

The apocrypha had nothing to do with the development of the Jewish faith, because they were never more then fictional fables, and fairy tails to them.

Also the Jews had never needed a canon prior to the sudden interest of the Christians, because all Jews knew the sacred books, and heard them read every Sabbath day in the Temple and Synagogues, and they were the only ball-game in town.

The Church embracing those books had nothing to do with the Jews not accepting then, and if Christ had never been born, they still wouldn't be part of the Hebrew canon today, because the writers were not inspired by God and none of them claim to be.

JH :)

[JHavard]

Do I smell syncretism? Or some other wishy washy 'all paths lead to God' muck?

When your born and raised in MUCK, fresh air smells strange.. :)

JH :)

[Lilllabettt]

Do you mean me? Or you? Were you raised in muck? I wasn't raised in muck. I wasn't raised in anything actually. My family's religion was vanilla ice cream soup, with an occasional cherry on top.

Lol, I'm getting hungry.

[bornacatholic]

I pray that God approves of the method your Church has taken, but it certainly doesn't offer salvation to the masses of people as the Bible itself does

*Jesus saves. A collection of books, the Bible, doesn't.

[JHavard]

Its stickier for Protestants, they reject the Church's authority. So the question hangs in the air. I mean, I know they don't seriously think it just dropped from the sky, neatly arranged and leather bound.

The church has always had the Old Testament, and within 10 or 15 years after the crucifixion of Christ, the sacred books of the New Testament began to be written and published in each local church.

We would have had the Bible today without the aid of the Catholic Church, because God intended it to be used to take His message to the world, and instead of you acting like you wrote it yourselves, you should feel blessed that God allowed you to have a part in it.

Tell me something, the Latin Vulgate Old Testament that was the official Bible of the Catholic Church for over 1100 years, was it taken from Jerome's translation of the Hebrew text, or was it taken from the Greek Septuagint?

JH :)

[Rokke]

"I always recommend the Haydock Bible, full of Church authorized interpretations"

"...the Church assembled the Bible, the Church can't be wrong where doctrine is concerned, and thats that."

A revealing common theme. Exactly who is "the Church"?

[JHavard]

Do you mean me? Or you? Were you raised in muck? I wasn't raised in muck. I wasn't raised in anything actually. My family's religion was vanilla ice cream soup, with an occasional cherry on top.

It was you who referenced muck, so I figured you must be the expert on it. :)

Do you have a Catholic background? I don't mean necessarily devout, just Catholic?

JH :)

[Lilllabettt]

Ah, St. Jerome translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. It is rather doubtful whether he revised the Old Testament, in its entirety, according to the Greek of the Septuagint.

St. Jerome thought the Septuagint was a-okay up to 391 AD. You will remember that it was in the 390's that the Church's canon was officially approved. The debate was rather heated, with conservatives against liberals and that kind of thing, and St. Jerome reacted.

He kind of threw a hissy fit. He and St. Augustine were always at odds over his translation. Canonizing sacred scripture was messy work for the Church. It was political, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit wasn't involved.

[samiam1972]

I can answer that one.
"The Church" refers to the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church set up by Jesus. Nearly 2000 years strong.

[JHavard]

*Jesus saves. A collection of books, the Bible, doesn't.

I agree, the Bible doesn't save, but it teaches us after we believe and turn our lives around.

JH :)

[Tamar1973]

Catholic Bibles also include parts of Daniel and Esther that were removed by the Protestants.

They were relegated to the dustheap or to history by the Jews first. Protestants were/are just following Jewish precedent.

[bornacatholic]

God intended for they’re to be many different faiths, as long as all of them were seeking Him.

Yes. It all makes perfect sense. God intended many Faiths, each teaching different Doctrines about Him and what is necessary for Salvation.

When Jesus said:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

He was likely just fooling around, right?

[samiam1972]

Yes, it teaches you one thing and me another. Oh bother. Now what do we do? I know! I'll go to the Church that Jesus gave me to help settle these disputes! Thank God!!

[Campion]

There was no official decision on the Apocrypha until the council of Trent.

That's not quite true. The local councils (Hippo and Rome, I believe) around AD 400 which finalized the NT canon also included the deuterocanonical books. (Some Protestant apologists have an obscure argument which alleges that they didn't define exactly the same canon as Trent, but that's a matter for hair-pulling dispute, IMO. It's beyond dispute that their OT canon was closer to Trent's than not.)

Trent was the first time the canon was defined by an ecumenical council, and thus probably the first time it was defined infallibly.

[Lilllabettt]

My father's family is some sort of Protestant. Church of Christ? Something like that. He told me they believed in the Assumption but not the Immaculate Conception.

My Ma's family is mostly Protestant; Lutheran I believe. She didn't have religion growing up, either. I was baptized by a Catholic priest. We didn't make Sunday trips to Mass though.

I went to Church school because my Ma was friend's with the other kids' mothers. I remember eating cookies and making a "Light of the World" felt banner. Thrilling, huh.

[Rokke]

OK. Is that "one" Holy, catholic and apostolic Church the "one" that determines "authorized interpretations" of the Bible, and has created doctrine without error?

[Lilllabettt]

You can never go wrong with the 4 marks of the true Church

[Pyro7480]

They were relegated to the dustheap or to history by the Jews first. Protestants were/are just following Jewish precedent.

Yeah, but this was done in medieval times. Christ used the Septuagint, which contained these parts of Daniel and Esther.

[Campion]

If the Jews had used these apocrypha books to develop their doctrine prior to the Christians running with them, then they must have dropped them from their doctrine also, because there is no record of them ever believing in such things.

Jews don't use the word "purgatory" (which is Latin), but they definitely believe in a process of purification after death, which is why they pray for the dead (ever heard of Jews "sitting shiva" for someone?). In fact, all evidence indicates that they prayed for the dead in Jesus' time, also. In fact, both Jews and all Christians except Protestants pray for the dead. So why are you guys the odd men out?