Skip to comments.Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Posted on 03/07/2007 9:10:18 AM PST by Salvation
Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler
Printer Friendly Version
|Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?|
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.
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.
The author states "quick overview of a complicated subject," Would you like to add other details from your point of view?
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.
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.
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.
that's true. they didn't simply truncate Holy Scripture, they did indeed change and suplement as well. it's a worthwhile distinction.
Ours get read?
What exactly is false and distorted?
1 Corinthians 11 and 14 are routinely distorted by protestants...
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...
So do Catholic Bibles. I think we have proved that. Would you agree?
**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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
and they went to another village.
Is repentance important?
...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
For whom did Jesus die?
I Cor. 5:7
...Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
I Cor. 5:7
...Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
In Whom must you believe to be saved?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
Was Joseph really the father of Jesus?
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
Did Jesus give His disciples power to heal?
...power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils.
...authority to drive out demons.
If it's hard to do, should we just remove it?
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Who is in charge?
I Cor. 10:28
...for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof:
I Cor. 10:28
(last part of verse missing)
How must we deal with our enemies?
...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.
...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Where did Jesus go?
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.
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!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Yes, that's the ticket. Let's toss out thousands of brilliant minds of our ancestors and just interpret everything as we see fit.
We have more books.
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.
Thanks for the comparisons.
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?
His Spirit within us bears witness with our Spirit as Scripture declares.
Perhaps you've read Alamo-Girl's list of . . . authorities, ranked . . . etc.
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?
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.
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.
It doesn't say half-siblings.
Luther wanted to scrap Revelations and James. Go figure.
We see the truth just fine, thank you.
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:
"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.
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
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.
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.
|Bible Research > Canon > Disputed NT Books|
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
|1. Greek & Latin||Date||Heb.||Jas.||Jn.||Pet.||Jude||Rev.||Shep.||Apoc.||Barn.||Clem.|
|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|
|Council of Laodicea||363||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||S||S||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|
|3rd Council of Carthage||397||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||S||S||S||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|
|Report of Junilius||550||Y||N||N||N||N||N||S||S||S||S|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|Bible Research > Canon > Disputed NT Books|
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".
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)
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.
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 Churchs 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 cant 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).
Oops! KJV should be RSV
"pope" Martin Luther...
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.
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".