Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 02-06-07 | Mary Harwell Sayler

Posted on 03/07/2007 9:10:18 AM PST by Salvation

Mary Harwell Sayler  
Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler
Printer Friendly Version
 
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

March 6, 2007

Question: What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? Is our Old Testament the same as a Jewish Bible? If not, why?

Answer: The most noticeable differences occur in the number of books included and the order in which they have been arranged. Both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew canon in a Protestant Bible (aka Old Testament) contain 39 books, whereas a Catholic Bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament. In addition, the Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, Church accepts a few more books as canonized scripture.

To give you a quick overview of a complicated subject, here's what happened: Several hundred years before the birth of Christ, Babylonian conquerors forced the Jews to leave Jerusalem. Away from their Temple and, often, from their priests, the exiled people forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. After a while, Jewish scholars wanted to make the Bible accessible again, so they translated Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language commonly spoken. Books of wisdom and histories about the period were added, too, eventually becoming so well known that Jesus and the earliest Christian writers were familiar with them. Like the original Hebrew scriptures, the Greek texts, which were known as the Septuagint, were not in a codex or book form as we're accustomed to now but were handwritten on leather or parchment scrolls and rolled up for ease in storage.

 Eventually, the Jewish exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem where they renovated the Temple. Then, in A.D. 70, warring peoples almost completely destroyed the sacred structure, which has never been rebuilt. Without this central place of worship, the Jews began looking to the Bible as their focal point of faith, but to assure the purity of that faith, only Hebrew scriptures were allowed into the Jewish canon. By then, however, the earliest Christians spoke and read Greek, so they continued to use the Septuagint or Greek version of the Bible for many centuries. After the Reformation though, some Christians decided to accept translations into Latin then English only from the Hebrew texts that the Jewish Bible contained, so the seven additional books in the Greek translation became known as the Apocrypha, meaning "hidden." Since the books themselves were no secret, the word seemed ironic or, perhaps, prophetic because, in 1947, an Arab boy searching for a lost goat found, instead, the Dead Sea scrolls, hidden in a hillside cave.

Interestingly, the leather scrolls had been carefully wrapped in linen cloth, coated in pitch, and placed in airtight pottery jars about ten inches across and two feet high where, well-preserved, they remained for many centuries. Later, other caves in the same area yielded similar finds with hundreds of manuscripts no longer hidden. Indeed, the oldest copies of the Bible now known to exist are the Dead Sea scrolls of the Septuagint.

Because of this authentic find from antiquity, many publishers in the twentieth century added back the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. So now, when an edition of the Bible says "with Apocrypha" on the cover, the extra books from the Septuagint will usually be placed between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the Bible. Catholic Bibles already contained those books, however, so you'll find them interwoven with other Old Testament books of history and wisdom writings. 

For the New Testament, it's a different story — and short. All of the books were written in Greek or Aramaic from the start. Although some debate occurred about which Gospels or Epistles should be included, all Christians eventually accepted all of the same 27 books in the same order. So, as long as you choose an edition that does not add explanatory notes opposed to a Catholic perspective, any reputable translation of the New Testament is fine.



TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Judaism; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: 327; bible; catholiclist; kjv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,135 next last
For your discussion
1 posted on 03/07/2007 9:10:20 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

the truth?


2 posted on 03/07/2007 9:21:28 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

When the NT speaks of Christ's half siblings, we trust that Scripture said what it meant and meant what it said. We don't slip and slide and shuck and jive trying to come up with rationalizations for alternate words. The languages were quite robust enough to distinguish between siblings, cousins and uncles. The text mentions siblings. End of story.


3 posted on 03/07/2007 9:28:09 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

The author states "quick overview of a complicated subject," Would you like to add other details from your point of view?


4 posted on 03/07/2007 9:29:38 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

well i think protestant bibles have removed books from Holy Scripture.

If we assume thus that theirs lack the whole truth then the difference between what they've got, and the comeplete truth is; truth.


5 posted on 03/07/2007 9:33:48 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

i don't see the complication.

protestants needed to distance themselves from the Word of God and given the low tech of the time figured they could do so by buying into the prevailing hebrew version as a way to do so yet archaeology has come to support the facts; the protestant bibles draw on false and distorted scriptures just as protestant teachings derive from false and distorted Christian teachings.


6 posted on 03/07/2007 9:37:00 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

Plus, phrases were changed or added/deleted by Luther in their Bibles so that when they quote from it, they discuss from an incomplete reference.


7 posted on 03/07/2007 9:37:24 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

that's true. they didn't simply truncate Holy Scripture, they did indeed change and suplement as well. it's a worthwhile distinction.


8 posted on 03/07/2007 9:41:38 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Salvation
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Ours get read?

10 posted on 03/07/2007 10:01:26 AM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

What exactly is false and distorted?


11 posted on 03/07/2007 10:03:14 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

1 Corinthians 11 and 14 are routinely distorted by protestants...


12 posted on 03/07/2007 10:04:22 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Alex Murphy

The only book I'm aware of that isn't read in at least some part during liturgy in the Orthodox liturgical year is Revelations... and I think there's better ways to be exposed to Revelations frankly...


14 posted on 03/07/2007 10:10:32 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

So do Catholic Bibles. I think we have proved that. Would you agree?


15 posted on 03/07/2007 10:14:47 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo

**So some/many Protestant Bibles now have the books added back in? I didn't know that. Are they in common use, I wonder?**

I doubt that they are in common use.

Would some Protestants like to weigh in here?


16 posted on 03/07/2007 10:16:03 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I am a Pentecostal, so of a different flavor altogether in many ways. I use "standard" Protestant Bibles in my daily reading, but also have a Catholic Bible. Except for the Apocryphal books, I have seen very little difference in the Catholic Bible and the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NAS, etc.


17 posted on 03/07/2007 10:20:43 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johnsantosjr; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Alex Murphy; Blogger; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; ...
And herein lies the problem with Protestantism. They don't understand New Testament teachings

WRONG. We understand your allegations quite well. We are not mentally defecient in the understanding department. We disagree about their validity.

because they don't know its teaching history throughout the ages,

No. Has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRADITIONS BUILT UPON TRADITIONS BUILT UPON TRADITIONS; BUILT UPON FOSSILIZED, CALCIFIED, EXTRAPOLATED TRADITIONS and applauced, by all the flying buttresses of the magicsterical throughout the ages. Nothing at all to do with all that traditions of men stuff.

It has to do with what THE TEXT SAYS. The TEXT says Christ had siblings. The accurate HISTORICAL RECORD says Christ had siblings. That's just a fact. All the traditions in the world will not obliterate that fact.

when it was explained again and again by the people who were trained by the Apostles themselves, and the people they trained, and so on.

MORE TRADITIONS OF MEN. CHRIST had a low opinion of TRADITIONS OF MEN. Protestys follow Christ in that regard. TRADITIONS OF MAN will NEVER trump Scripture for a true Protesty.

Nor do they know or understand the unbroken Traditions of the Christian faith handed down from the earliest days of Christiaity.

WRONG AGAIN. We have no mental defeciencies in the understanding department. We are not low IQ idiots.

1. We DISAGREE that the traditions are unbroken from Christ down through the ages.
2. We DISAGREE that the TRADITIONS OF MEN WERE UWAVERINGLY 100% UNALTERED, UNCHANGED, UNINFLUENCED BY POLITICS down through the ages.

Few Protestants study the early Church Fathers and Saints, or the great Church Councils that addressed so many questions of the faith.

WRONG AGAIN.

Tell that to Alamo-Girl to her face. Actually, though I haven't very extensively at all, even I have studied such somewhat. And other Protesties hereon have studied such extensively. NON TRADITION, NON POLITICALLY CENSORED, influenced DATA yields different conclusions.

They rather prefer to think of the Bible as something that just fell from the sky onto Martin Luther's lap

TRY AGAIN. That bit of Protesty mind-reading missed the boat entirely. 100% miss. We just don't tolerate the political, tradition, magicsterical influences encrusted mangled texts over the centuries. Our textual scholarship stands up very well to be best anywhere. Thank you very much.

and that is to be explained and understood in the hearts of each individual.

YEAH, we are pretty big on each individual being responsible before God alone for how they receive His Word and apply it in their lives. God will not be very impressed about rationalizing lines like: "But the magicsterical said . . . and our traditioins said . . . and the bureaucratic edifice said . . . and the folks in the long robes said . . . "

They don't know that what has become known as the "Bible" was just a loose compilation of letters and epistles that were floating around the various Christian circles for centuries before they were finally placed under the cover of one book and codified as "inspired" by the Catholic Church around 400 A.D.

WRONG AGAIN. Our knowledge is as full and robust about true history as anyone's. We disagree about the historical record.

We disagree that God singled out the Roman Bishop for any special clout whatsoever.

We disagree that there was no consensus about the proper Canon before the 400 year Council.

We disagree that the 400 year Council was exclusively ROMAN.

We happen to believe that GOD HIMSELF guided, protected, ordered the confirmations of the Canon we regard as sacred. We do not belive political bureaucracies are responsible. If anything, they are responsible for mangling it every chance they get.

I feel very badly for them. They just don't get it, nor do they seem to want to "get it".

We could say the same about Roman believers. With just as much documentation, at least.

That must be because it's a lot easier for them, having nothing to believe in outside of their own intellect and personal understanding; which is harldly true faith at all, imho.

WRONG AGAIN.

BELIEVING IN THE SUPREMACY OF GOD ALMIGHTY'S WORD IS THE FURTHEST THING FROM BELIEVING IN NOTHING! I'm sure He's very impressed with that accusation! LOL.

Belief in God's unchanging, ever faithful WORD is a hallmark of faith. Derisively dismissing it is not impressive. We don't, at our best, have much confidence in the flesh, including our intellect. Our confidence is IN THE LORD AND IN HIS FAITHFULNESS TO CONFIRM HIS WORD.

Again, faith in ALMIGHTY GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD . . . HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY . . . BUT NOT HIS WORD . . . THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF GLEAMING FAITH.

Perhaps if the
TRADITION BLINDERS,
THE MAGICSTERICAL BLINDERS,
THE EDIFICE BLINDERS,
THE CUSTOMS BLINDERS,
THE BUREAUCRATIC BLINDERS,
. . .

were removed, more Roman believers could see more of the truth, themselves.

imho, of course.

18 posted on 03/07/2007 10:23:56 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Quick Comparison of Bible Versions


It is often said that all Bible versions are basically the same, that their differences are just minor wording changes. Read the following comparison between the King James Version and the best-selling modern Bible translation, the New International Version, and then decide for yourself whether or not this is true.

Why did Jesus come to earth?

KING JAMES
BIBLE

Luke 9:56
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Matt. 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Luke 9:56
and they went to another village.


Matt. 18:11
(missing)

Is repentance important?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


Matt. 9:13
...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Matt. 9:13
...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.



For whom did Jesus die?


KING JAMES
BIBLE


I Cor. 5:7
...Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

I Cor. 5:7
...Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.


In Whom must you believe to be saved?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.



NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION


John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.


Was Joseph really the father of Jesus?

KING JAMES
BIBLE



Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Luke 2:33
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Did Jesus give His disciples power to heal?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


Mark 3:15
...power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils.


NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Mark 3:15
...authority to drive out demons.



If it's hard to do, should we just remove it?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.



NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Mark 11:26
(missing)


Who is in charge?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


I Cor. 10:28
...for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof:

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

I Cor. 10:28
(last part of verse missing)


How must we deal with our enemies?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


Matt. 5:44
...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

Matt. 5:44
...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.


Where did Jesus go?

KING JAMES
BIBLE


John 16:16
A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION

John 16:16
In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.



Question: Aren't some of these things included in the NIV in the footnotes?


Answer: That is not the same as including them in the text. When a young Christian sees these passages have been moved to the footnotes, he or she will assume that they are probably not really part of God's Word. After all, the translators did not include them in the text, but simply implied that "some" manuscripts include them. What they are not told is that the vast majority of texts used by the early church included these words. They are God's Words!


19 posted on 03/07/2007 10:24:19 AM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Lady In Blue; NYer; american colleen; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

20 posted on 03/07/2007 10:46:10 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Yes, that's the ticket. Let's toss out thousands of brilliant minds of our ancestors and just interpret everything as we see fit.


21 posted on 03/07/2007 10:50:50 AM PST by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

We have more books.


22 posted on 03/07/2007 10:54:17 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Let's toss out thousands of brilliant minds of our ancestors and just interpret everything as we see fit.

= = =

I don't see a screamingly brazen non sequitir as remotely close to the reality I know.

We do not toss out anything demonstrably valid. We do toss out traditions of men--particularly the tendency to equate them with God's Word.


23 posted on 03/07/2007 10:55:09 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

Thanks for the comparisons.


24 posted on 03/07/2007 10:56:22 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Quix

2 Thessalonians 15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


How do you decide which teachings passed by word of mouth are legitimate or not?


25 posted on 03/07/2007 10:58:34 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

His Spirit within us bears witness with our Spirit as Scripture declares.

Perhaps you've read Alamo-Girl's list of . . . authorities, ranked . . . etc.


26 posted on 03/07/2007 11:01:50 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

How are you so confident that Christ's proscription of

TRADITIONS OF MEN

does not apply to a list of things in the Roman edifice, maticsterical etc?


27 posted on 03/07/2007 11:02:38 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
No problem. There are websites that do a more thorough breakdown. Like Here . I'm not necessarily a KJ only person, but I do think it's important for people to recognize the significant differences between the more modern versions (this also includes the New KJV) and the original KJV.

My own church has NIV Bibles in the pews, which I have a problem with, but I raise my concerns when necessary.

Sincerely
28 posted on 03/07/2007 11:03:10 AM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Who is "we"?

If it were not for the "traditions" of men, no one would have bothered to assemble, interpret, translate, promote, or testify to these gospels. It took intelligence, judgement, activism, wisdom, money, drive, faith, and discernment to do all of those things. The intelligence, judgement, activism, wisdom, money, drive, faith, and discernment did not end the day St. Paul died or when the Nicene Creed was penned.


29 posted on 03/07/2007 11:07:51 AM PST by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Paul is very clear that his teachings do not merely entail his letters, but also verbal lessons to people like Timothy. While I believe that the core of Christian belief is detailed in what has been canonized as the New Testament, I have no problem with other traditions being followed as long as they do not interfere with that core doctrine.

Basically, I believe that if you follow the Nicene Creed and believe nothing that contradicts that Creed, you are a Christian as far as a human can determine. Anything that is extraneous is fluff and not worth condemning people over.

I believe that calling your brothers "fools" is something that Jesus warned against.


30 posted on 03/07/2007 11:11:21 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The Apocrypha makes clear the dishonesty of those Catholics who insist that "we gave you (sola scriptura Protestants) the Bible". Clearly, if the canons differ by omission of entire books, then Protestants are using some non-Catholic source of authority to determine which books are legitimate.
31 posted on 03/07/2007 11:11:47 AM PST by Sloth (The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
imho, of course
Of course. Quix, are you okay? You seem to be holding back :)
32 posted on 03/07/2007 11:11:56 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Quix

It doesn't say half-siblings.


33 posted on 03/07/2007 11:12:17 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Luther wanted to scrap Revelations and James. Go figure.


34 posted on 03/07/2007 11:13:39 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Quix

We see the truth just fine, thank you.


35 posted on 03/07/2007 11:14:24 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Having been both Presbyterian and Episcopalian, the Episcopal church is the only one that uses the Apocrypha. They very clearly delineate it and it is placed at the end of the Old Testament. I didn't even know what the "Apocrypha" was when I was a Presbyterian!

By the way, here is something interesting I ran across the other day:

Genesis 2:8
"And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed." KJV
"And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed." Douay-Rheims

"Garden in Eden" = "Paradise of Pleasure." I think I like "Paradise of Pleasure" better. It really describes what the Garden was.


36 posted on 03/07/2007 11:20:20 AM PST by nanetteclaret (Our Lady's Hat Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Quix
But how do you really feel? LOL!

Thank you for sharing your testimony!

On the subject of the thread, the most troubling difference I see between the Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant Bibles is with reference to the specially announced Name of God in the Song of Moses, i.e. the Rock. The Masoretic text retains the Name, the Septuagint washes over it and the Vulgate omits it.

Here is the research thread: Religion Forum Research Project: God is the Rock

37 posted on 03/07/2007 11:24:02 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

We read from the KJV per direction from our bishops. I generally read from the ESV and the New Jerusalem in addition. I have not found the NAB to be as useful as the others and have generally discarded all other versions.

I am Anglican, btw.


38 posted on 03/07/2007 11:27:43 AM PST by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org: Ecce Pactum, id cape aut id relinque)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
Thanks for the link.

From what I've been able to figure out the differences really boil down to whether your OT is based on the commissioned copy known as the Septuagint, or the Hebrew Canon which had the vowels and accents added by the Masorites. The Septuagint included the books that even St. Athansius said were not inspired. The Hebrew Canon did not include those books and never has.

39 posted on 03/07/2007 11:30:03 AM PST by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Here is a page that documents the acceptance of many of the "disputed" books in the NT.

Disputed Books of the New Testament

The table below shows which of the disputed New Testament books and other writings are included in catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century. Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture; N indicates that the author lists it in a class of disputed books; M indicates that the list may be construed to include the book as Holy Scripture; X indicates that the book is expressly rejected by the author. An S indicates that the author does not mention the book at all, which implies its rejection. See notes on the authorities and books following.


KEY TO BOOKS


Heb. - Epistle to the Hebrews
Jas. - Epistle of James
Jn. - Second and Third Epistle of John
Pet. - Second Epistle of Peter
Jude - Epistle of Jude
Rev. - Revelation of John
Shep. - Shepherd of Hermas
Apoc. - Apocalypse of Peter
Barn. - Epistle of Barnabas
Clem. - Epistle of Clement


1. Greek & Latin Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem.
Muratorian Fragment 170 S S M S Y Y X N S S
Origen 225 Y N N N N Y S S S S
Eusebius of Caesarea 324 Y N N N N N X X X S
Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S
Cheltenham list 360 S S Y Y S Y S S S S
Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S
Athanasius 367 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S
Gregory of Nazianzus 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S
Amphilocius of Iconium 380 Y N N N N N S S S S
Rufinus 380 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S
Epiphanius 385 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
Jerome 390 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
Augustine 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
Codex Claromontanus 400 M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S
Letter of Innocent I 405 Y Y Y Y Y Y S X S S
Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S
Isadore of Seville 625 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
John of Damascus 730 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
2. Syrian Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem.
Apostolic Canons 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Y
Peshitta Version 400 Y Y S S S S S S S S
Report of Junilius 550 Y N N N N N S S S S



NOTES

The most satisfactory treatment in English of the Church's New Testament canon is Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). Still useful is the earlier study by B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: MacMillan, 1855; 6th edition 1889; reprinted, Grand Rapids, 1980). For a popular conservative survey see Norman Geisler and William Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986).

Muratorian Fragment. The oldest known list of New Testament books, discovered by Muratori in a seventh century manuscript. The list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." See English text.

Origen. An influential teacher in Alexandria, the chief city of Egypt. His canon is known from the compilation made by Eusebius for his Church History (see below). He accepted Hebrews as Scripture while entertaining doubts about its author. See English text.

Eusebius of Caesarea. An early historian of the Church. His list was included in his Church History. He ascribed Hebrews to Paul. See English text.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Bishop of Jerusalem. The omission of Revelation from his list is due to a general reaction against this book in the east after excessive use was made of it by the Montanist cults. See English text.

Cheltenham list. A catalog of uncertain date contained in a tenth-century Latin manuscript of miscellaneous content, probably from Africa. See English text.

Council of Laodicea. The authenticity of this list of canonical books has been doubted by many scholars because it is absent from various manuscripts containing the decrees of the regional (Galatian) Council. The list may have been added later. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem above. See English text.

Athanasius. Bishop of Alexandria. His list was published as part of his Easter Letter in 367. After the list he declares, "these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away." See English text.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Bishop of Constantinople from 378 to 382. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem above. See English text.

Amphilocius of Iconium. Bishop of Iconium in Galatia. See English text.

Rufinus. An elder in the church in Aquileia (northeast Italy), and a friend of Jerome. The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Epiphanius. Bishop of Salamis (isle of Cyprus) from 367 to 402. The Greek text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Jerome. Born near Aquileia, lived in Rome for a time, and spent most of his later life as a monk in Syria and Palestine. He was the most learned churchman of his time, and was commissioned by the bishop of Rome to produce an authoritative Latin version (the Vulgate). The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Augustine. Bishop of Hippo (in the Roman colony on the northern coast of western Africa). The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Third Council of Carthage. Not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. See English text.

Codex Claromontanus. A stichometric catalog from the third century is inserted between Philemon and Hebrews in this sixth century Greek-Latin manuscript of the epistles of Paul. The list does not have Hebrews, but neither does it have Philippians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and so many scholars have supposed that these four books dropped out by an error of transcription, the scribe's eye jumping from the end of the word ephesious (Ephesians) to the end of ebraious (Hebrews). Besides the books indicated on the table the list includes the apocryphal Acts of Paul. See English text.

Letter of Innocent I. A letter from the bishop of Rome to the bishop of Toulouse. The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Decree of Gelasius. Traditionally ascribed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome from 492 to 496, and thought to be promulgated by him as president of a council of 70 bishops in Rome, but now regarded by most scholars as spurious, and probably composed by an Italian churchman in the sixth century. The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Isadore of Seville. Archbishop of Seville (Spain), and founder of a school in that city. His list appears in an encyclopedia he compiled for his students. The Latin text is given in Westcott, appendix D.

John of Damascus. An eminent theologian of the Eastern Church, born in Damascus, but a monk in Jerusalem for most of his life. His list is derived from the writings of Epiphanius. The Greek text is given in Westcott, appendix D. See English text.

Apostolic Canons. One of many additions made by the final editor of an ancient Syrian book of church order called The Apostolic Constitutions. The whole document purports to be from the apostles, but this imposture is not taken seriously by any scholar today. Nevertheless, the work is useful as evidence for the opinions of a part of the Syrian churches towards the end of the fourth century. The list of canonical books was probably added about the year 380. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem above. See English text.

Peshitta Version. The old Syriac version did not include the four disputed books indicated on the table. These were not generally received as Scripture in the Syrian churches until the ninth century.

Report of Junilius. An African bishop of the sixth century. After visiting the Syrian churches he wrote a work describing their practices, in which his list is given. See Latin text in Westcott, appendix D.

Sub-Apostolic Literature

For a brief survey of works of this class and their place in the early Church, see Metzger, ch. 7

The Shepherd of Hermas. A autobiographical tale about a certain Hermas who is visited by an angelic Pastor (Shepherd), who imparts some legalistic teaching to him in the form of an allegory. Written probably in Rome around A.D. 100.

The Apocalypse of Peter. This work expands upon the Olivet discourse (Mat. 24-25) with descriptions of the last judgment and vivid scenes of heaven and hell. Written about A.D. 130.

The Epistle of Barnabas. A legalistic but anti-Jewish discourse on Christian life falsely ascribed to Barnabas, the missionary companion of Paul. Written probably about A.D. 120 in Italy.

The Epistle of Clement. A letter written about A.D. 100 to the church in Corinth from the church in Rome, and traditionally ascribed to Clement of Rome. The author has heard that the disorderly Corinthians have now ousted their elders, and in this letter he urges them to repent of the action.





40 posted on 03/07/2007 11:30:28 AM PST by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
We do not toss out anything demonstrably valid. We do toss out traditions of men--particularly the tendency to equate them with God's Word.

Please. Your interpretations of Sacred Scriptures that differ from the 2000 year history of the Church ARE traditions of men... What you consider as "demonstrably valid" is purely subjective interpretation.

For example, the "tradition of men" called Sola Scriptura - ironically, itself found NOWHERE in Scriptures...

Or how about the "tradition of men" called Sola Fide - a tradition that is absolutely denied in James 2...

Yes, let's take off the blinders and be careful next time you point at someone's "blindness".

Regards

41 posted on 03/07/2007 11:31:53 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: johnsantosjr

AMEN!


42 posted on 03/07/2007 11:33:42 AM PST by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Now as to differences between Protestant and Catholic Bibles, it is interesting to look at Martin Luther's attitude toward the Canon:

Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books'
of the New Testament


Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of 'disputed books' are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.

Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."

Luther's criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther's German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the 'disputed books' became necessary.

If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon.

From Biblical Researcher.com. (BTW, they reproduce Luther's introduction to each of the above writings farther down the page)

43 posted on 03/07/2007 11:36:21 AM PST by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
His Spirit within us bears witness with our Spirit as Scripture declares.

I wouldn't use that line too much. The bible doesn't tell us that the Spirit tells us which books are Scripture and which are not...

IF we believed EVERYONE who made that claim, what do we do with Joseph Smith? And any other cult that comes along making such claims? Sorry, the "Spirit told me so" is just not going to cut it. Our sinfulness cancels that out as an objective means of determining the canon.

Regards

44 posted on 03/07/2007 11:38:09 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: johnsantosjr; Quix; Sloth; Alamo-Girl; wmfights
Here is what you are not considering when you talk about these different things between Bibles:

From Scripture Catholic

I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Top

 


II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

Top

 


III. Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

Top


45 posted on 03/07/2007 11:38:58 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Oops! KJV should be RSV


46 posted on 03/07/2007 11:39:24 AM PST by nanetteclaret (Our Lady's Hat Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Clearly, if the canons differ by omission of entire books, then Protestants are using some non-Catholic source of authority to determine which books are legitimate.

"pope" Martin Luther...

Regards

47 posted on 03/07/2007 11:40:18 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Quix
TRADITIONS OF MEN

Christ proscribed it, but indeed, you interpret that to mean whatever is in your traditions that says these are traditions of men are traditions of men.

Pretty circular isn't it?

Considering that Jesus never wrote down a word of what he said, I would say the testimony of the Apostles is pretty reliable. What you read as scripture was written by students of these great men outlining their traditional take of what Jesus actually did.

Whoops! The whole of scripture then becomes traditions of men.
48 posted on 03/07/2007 11:40:48 AM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Now as to those who would question to duetero's in the OT, I would point toward the clear example of Mr. Luther, highlighted above. But Mr. Luther was not the first example. For that, we should go to a Second Century "hero," by the name of Marcion. Rather than reprinting the whole article here, I'd refer the reader to: ntcanon.org.

Sort of like some folk today, Marcion threw out all of the NT epistles, with the exception of the Pauline epistles. He also threw out all the Gospels except for Luke.

49 posted on 03/07/2007 11:46:51 AM PST by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Quix
IF we believed EVERYONE who made that claim, what do we do with Joseph Smith?

If we're going to believe EVERYONE who makes that claim, we have a problem far older than Joseph Smith.

The problem was named "mohammed".

50 posted on 03/07/2007 12:03:04 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,135 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson