Should people who rip books out of the Bible burn in Hell?

[Josiah]

I beg to differ. The Pope at the Council of Rome (382) defined the books of the OT and NT. That was before the Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox split off. So that is as close as we are going to get to the whole of Christianity.

Some regional bishops have at random times gave opinons on the subject. But that is not remotely related to CHRISTIANITY making a formal, official, authoritative, binding, ECUMENICAL declaration. Proof? Never - not for one day - did or have all Christians agree on what is and is not Scripture.

Yes Hippo and Carthage were local councils, presumably because of local dissent.

Yup. So what they decided regarding what should and should not be part of the Lectionary (readings for public worship) is entirely unrelated to our discussion. They didn't address the issue of Scripture... they weren't ecumenical.... no one seemed to know or care about them.

The Orthodox Churches have what we call the deuterocanonical books

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has a UNIQUE Bible that no other denomination on the planet has EVER agreed with. As you note, the Eastern churches have always had MORE books regarded in some sense as Scripture, as part of their BibleS. If there had been some official, formal, authoritative, definitive ECUMENICAL declaration of what is Scripture (which you have yet to name), then why is it there has NEVER been one set of books so accepted?

Please can you answer me a couple of points.

1. When did the Jews have an official, formal, definitive, authoritative declaration of their canon?

The Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Until then, there was no official declaration in Judaism of what was and was not Scripture. The Jews addressed that - in a formal, official, authoritative, binding way - that all Jews henceforth accepted. All Jews since then have embraced exactly the same books as their Scripture.

2. What evidence do you have for your claim that we have a TRADITION that "is solid around 66 books (by common Christian count)" when you consider that most of Christianity from 382 used at least 73 books?

.... I think you just answered your own question. Since in 382 there were more EASTERN (Greek speaking) Christians than western (Latin speaking) ones, actually your question should be why did those in the West have FEWER books than MOST Christians, especially if there had been some (yet unidentified) Ecumenical Council of all bishops that officially, formally, authoritatively declare exactly what books are and are not normative, canonical Scripture (and thus some Bishops - most? - in violation of an Ecumenical Council)?

Why would many Catholic tomes include the Epistle to the Leodiceans when it was not mentioned at that non-authoritative regional synod you keep mentioning; if it DEFINED such in a binding way even for just the Catholic denomination, why did most Catholics violate that by adding a book?


I appreciate that a handful of denominations (including yours) HAS officially declared what books ARE normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God (Scripture) FOR THAT SINGULAR denomination. I'm not at all opposed to that (although Lutheranism has not done so). Fine. But what is simply untrue is that ERGO that denomination definitively did so for ALL Christianity. Obviously, undeniably, that cannot be true but since no denomination observes the decision of any other on this point (EVERY denomination that has done this has a UNIQUE tome). These denominations can - at times - point to some official action IT ITSELF took in this regard but can't point to any ECUMENICAL action (thus the differences that exist - and always have). What we have (and it's not perfect!) is a matter of TRADITION. Always interesting to me when CATHOLICS (of all people) fight against Tradition and in favor of denominational actions.




Blessings to you and yours in the season of Lent...


- Josiah





.

 

[Stephen]

Some regional bishops have at random times gave opinons on the subject. But that is not remotely related to CHRISTIANITY making a formal, official, authoritative, binding, ECUMENICAL declaration. Proof? Never - not for one day - did or have all Christians agree on what is and is not Scripture.

Not some regional bishops having opinions, but a Council led by the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter who held the keys and the power to bind and looses (Mt 16:19), making an authoritative declaration.

Yup. So what they decided regarding what should and should not be part of the Lectionary (readings for public worship) is entirely unrelated to our discussion. They didn't address the issue of Scripture... they weren't ecumenical.... no one seemed to know or care about them.

It's not unrelated because the (Eastern) Orthodox Church looks to Carthage as an official declaration of the Canon

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has a UNIQUE Bible that no other denomination on the planet has EVER agreed with. As you note, the Eastern churches have always had MORE books regarded in some sense as Scripture, as part of their BibleS. If there had been some official, formal, authoritative, definitive ECUMENICAL declaration of what is Scripture (which you have yet to name), then why is it there has NEVER been one set of books so accepted?

Not the Roman Catholic Church but the Catholic Church. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches agree with the Catholic Church regarding the Deuterocanonical books.

The following is taken from the Orthodox Church in America site regarding the Canon of Scripture:

Question​

What is the position of the Orthodox Church regarding the books that the Protestant churches refer to as the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.

---

​

Answer​

The Old Testament books to which you refer—know in the Orthodox Church as the “longer canon” rather than the “Apocrypha,” as they are known among the Protestants—are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.

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

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

Canon of Scripture - Questions & Answers

What is the position of the Orthodox Church regarding the books that the Protestant churches refer to as the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.

www.oca.org

The Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Until then, there was no official declaration in Judaism of what was and was not Scripture. The Jews addressed that - in a formal, official, authoritative, binding way - that all Jews henceforth accepted. All Jews since then have embraced exactly the same books as their Scripture.

The "Council of Jamnia (Jabneh) did not declare an official canon in a formal, official, authoritative, binding way. That is a Protestant myth.

Steve Ray wrote a long article on this. Here are some summary points from it:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

The Council That Wasn't

It is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church.

www.catholic.com

.... I think you just answered your own question. Since in 382 there were more EASTERN (Greek speaking) Christians than western (Latin speaking) ones, actually your question should be why did those in the West have FEWER books than MOST Christians, especially if there had been some (yet unidentified) Ecumenical Council of all bishops that officially, formally, authoritatively declare exactly what books are and are not normative, canonical Scripture (and thus some Bishops - most? - in violation of an Ecumenical Council)?

Why would many Catholic tomes include the Epistle to the Leodiceans when it was not mentioned at that non-authoritative regional synod you keep mentioning; if it DEFINED such in a binding way even for just the Catholic denomination, why did most Catholics violate that by adding a book?


I appreciate that a handful of denominations (including yours) HAS officially declared what books ARE normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God (Scripture) FOR THAT SINGULAR denomination. I'm not at all opposed to that (although Lutheranism has not done so). Fine. But what is simply untrue is that ERGO that denomination definitively did so for ALL Christianity. Obviously, undeniably, that cannot be true but since no denomination observes the decision of any other on this point (EVERY denomination that has done this has a UNIQUE tome). These denominations can - at times - point to some official action IT ITSELF took in this regard but can't point to any ECUMENICAL action (thus the differences that exist - and always have). What we have (and it's not perfect!) is a matter of TRADITION. Always interesting to me when CATHOLICS (of all people) fight against Tradition and in favor of denominational actions.




Blessings to you and yours in the season of Lent...


- Josiah

You are dodging the real issues here regarding the 66 books:

1. From the early days of the Church the 7 deuterocanonical books were accepted by all Christianity. That some groups added more is irrelevant to that point. No-one accepted only 66 books of the OT.

2 As a Catholic, Martin Luther inherited a Bible containing the deuterocanonicals that were included by Catholics and Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental). Not he nor any other Protestant had authority to remove them from the canon.

God bless
Stephen

 

[Origen]

The "Council of Jamnia (Jabneh) did not declare an official canon in a formal, official, authoritative, binding way. That is a Protestant myth.

It is indeed a myth but it is not a protestant myth. It was Heinrich Graetz, a Jewish scholar, who first proposed the council of Jamnia theory concerning the O.T. canon in 1871. After Graetz, Frants Buhl, a contributor to the Jewish Encyclopedia, built upon his work.

In 1964 it was Jack P. Lewis, a protestant scholar, who wrote a critique of Jamnia theory refuting it (see "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?").

Nevertheless I do agree that it is very sad that many sources are not up-to-date on this topic.

 

[Stephen]

It is indeed a myth but it is not a protestant myth. It was Heinrich Graetz, a Jewish scholar, who first proposed the council of Jamnia theory concerning the O.T. canon in 1871. After Graetz, the Jewish scholar Frants Buhl, a contributor to the Jewish Encyclopedia, built upon his work.

In 1964 it was Jack P. Lewis, a protestant scholar, who wrote a critique of Jamnia theory refuting it (see "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?").

Nevertheless I do agree that it is very sad that many sources are not up-to-date on this topic.

Interesting - thank you.

 

[Origen]

Interesting - thank you.

You are welcome. Do you own the Jerome Biblical Commentary?

 

[Josiah]

Not some regional bishops having opinions, but a Council led by the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter who held the keys and the power to bind and looses (Mt 16:19), making an authoritative declaration.

So all Orthodox have exactly the same view of the regional bishop in the city of Rome that your denomination had had since 1870? Do they know that? What evidence do you have that all Orthodox followed that bishops opinion and that's why none of them follow his opinion on this since none of them have the same Bible as the RCC now does?

What evidence do you have that this bishop of that city spoke Ex Cathredra AND that every Christian and Christian church from China to England to Egypt regarded his opinion as The formal, official, authoritative declaration on the subject, so that ONLY the Catholic Church followed this (all others have ignored it)?

It's not unrelated because the (Eastern) Orthodox Church looks to Carthage as an official declaration of the Canon

Where is the evidence of that? And why then has every Orthodox Church not followed it? Why does the Catholic Church have a UNIQUE collection that NO OTHER HAS EVER agreed with?

Not the Roman Catholic Church but the Catholic Church. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches agree with the Catholic Church regarding the Deuterocanonical books.

Nope. They all have DIFFERENT collections. Always have. Still do. None other accepts the post-Trent Catholic set except for the post-Trent Catholic Church.

The following is taken from the Orthodox Church in America site regarding the Canon of Scripture:

Not a word about how the Bishop in Rome is the singular, infallible anything....

Not a word about how all Orthodox Churches follow the western regional synod at Carthage but obviously have no idea what it said since no Orthodox Church has ever agreed with it.


Here's what Catholic Answer says about this:

Question: Do Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have the same canon of Scripture? ​

Answer: the Eastern Orthodox have a different canon of Scripture.​

It does on to note just SOME of the differences between the various Eastern Orthodox Bibles and the post-Trent RCC collection. So.... if the Orthodox churches all obey this western synod at Carthage as authoritative/binding/ecumenical/definitive, why do none of them follow it?

As a Catholic, Martin Luther inherited a Bible containing the deuterocanonicals that were included by Catholics

Yes, the singular Catholic Church had, by its tradition, a UNIQUE Bible with a UNIQUE set of books in it (most with the Epistle to the Leodiceans - 28 NT books). The tome he was familiar with was not like ANY Orthodox bible.... and not like the Catholic Bible you have.

Luther INCLUDED all the books that the RCC later did - except for one, he left out the Epistle to the Leodiceans. And he included one MORE the RCC at Trent left out. To this day, some Catholics are complaining about him deleting that book. But his translation actually had one MORE book in it than your post-Trent Catholic one, because that book existed in all Bibles in Germany. But Trent ripped it out. So, Luther's translation had the SAME number of books in it that yours does...but with two differences. I agree, he had no authority to remove the only book he did (The Epistle to the Leodiceans) but then Trent had no authority to remove the book Luther left in. But note: Lutheranism has no official position on this topic, it views that this is something for the WHOLE church, not just one segment of it like the Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican or Reformed or LDS.




.

 

[Stephen]

You are welcome. Do you own the Jerome Biblical Commentary?

I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary - Student Edition., a hefty 1426 pages excluding bibliography and index.

 

[Origen]

I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary - Student Edition., a hefty 1426 pages excluding bibliography and index.

I believe there is an article in there by Raymond E. Brown (an excellent scholar) covering the Jamnia topic.

 

[JRT]

To be honest I have not read this entire thread but for several weeks now the title itself has been disturbing to me. It is not disturbing because the debate over the canon of scripture is actually quite interesting. The title suggests a malevolence on the part of people who have been in the position to make the decisions on what to include or exclude. Such decisions are not made arbitrarily but rather with care and scholarship and, I am sure, prayerfully as well. More than this, the title actually suggests to me a kind of sadistic eagerness to resort to the "hell option".

 

[Josiah]

To be honest I have not read this entire thread but for several weeks now the title itself has been disturbing to me. It is not disturbing because the debate over the canon of scripture is actually quite interesting. The title suggests a malevolence on the part of people who have been in the position to make the decisions on what to include or exclude. Such decisions are not made arbitrarily but rather with care and scholarship and, I am sure, prayerfully as well. More than this, the title actually suggests to me a kind of sadistic eagerness to resort to the "hell option".

Some thoughts, JRT.....


1. The REALITY is, this is not a topic that has been authoritatively, definitively and universally decided. A handful of individual denominations have done so (always UNIQUELY) but only for it itself. Of those few that have ruled on this, NONE agree with such (they all have UNIQUE sets).


2. What is considered the normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God is a matter of TRADITION. It is very solid around 66 books (by Christian count) - which is very remarkable. It's less so around another 7-12 or so, less so around another dozen or so. Not only are those 20 or so books SOMETIMES accepted and SOMETIMES not, but the authority of such varies considerably. So, while the embrace of 66 books is universal - both in their inclusion but in their authority and purpose. Below that are a number (from 7 to 20 or so) with lesser Tradition and a number with even less.


3. What I find.... interesting.... is this difference seems to have been of near zero consequence or interest until very recently. The West and East NEVER agreed on this and yet it was never a problem. Christians widely disagreed on this and yet never was it the topic of any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And for those who have READ at least some of them (I've read 8 of them), it's clear to see why. I suggest you READ Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Leodiceans.... I think you'll immediately see why no one seemed too bothered by whether these are or are not to be included in a tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on it in genuine imitation gold letters. In my Catholic years, I don't recall knowing any Catholic who had read any of them.... I never heard a sermon from any of them.... there never was a Bible study on any of them. I wonder how many Catholics can even name more than half of them? There's no doctrine that comes from any of them! Some important history! Some great inspirational and devotional material! But nothing that regards dogma, and since the point of CANON is to provide a rule/norm for the evaluation of dogma, whether they care canon (norma normans) or just great literature is kinda moot. Catholics and Orthodox fight over much - and horribly SPLIT - but this never came up because..... well to be blunt.... no one thinks they matter much. When I talk with my Catholic family, I WELCOME them using their post-Trent 7. Welcome it! They have no clue what they are or what's in them.... and nothing in them will help defend any debated Catholic dogma, so go ahead. By the way, Luther allowed this too.


4. So, why the fuss? And I agree with you, it seems sadistic. It's all about denominational claims of AUTHORITY - given self or deprived of others. Catholics are told there's only ONE denomination that can decide anything - itself - and every other church on the planet is therefore wrong because no other agrees with the RCC on this. It's a way it uses to condemn others for their lack of blind obedience to itself. Protestants are told that the RCC added these books in order to support their wrong dogmas... the RCC did not do it for that reason, and those boo(ks don't teach their wrong dogmas. It's just that the TRADITION on what is and is not Scripture is not perfect. NEVER has been. STILL isn't (which is why we don't have the same set of books in our various tomes - and never have had). BUT here's my point: It's amazingly irrelevant. The 66 we agree on are where our teachings are found. MANY books (millions!) are informational and inspirational - as are most of the DEUTERO books, but nothing is in them that concerns dogma.... which is why they are seldom read, almost never taught or preached on. Interesting that CATHOLICS (of all people) are so upset by the concept of TRADITION but some are.... their need for absolute power in their denomination seems more important.





.

 

[tango]

I prefer to speak for myself. While the actual gospel of salvation is essential, the whole Bible is not that. People can be saved and do get saved without the Bible. But the Bible is important as basis. It is the gospel that Jesus is our savior and we need to have our trust in him for that.

I really have no idea what, if any, point you're trying to make here. Firstly you talked of a partial message compromising salvation and now you're shifting stances. I don't feel like scrolling back and forth to spot shifts so I'll figure we probably agree on what matters here and leave it at that.

 

[Stephen]

So all Orthodox have exactly the same view of the regional bishop in the city of Rome that your denomination had had since 1870? Do they know that? What evidence do you have that all Orthodox followed that bishops opinion and that's why none of them follow his opinion on this since none of them have the same Bible as the RCC now does?

What evidence do you have that this bishop of that city spoke Ex Cathredra AND that every Christian and Christian church from China to England to Egypt regarded his opinion as The formal, official, authoritative declaration on the subject, so that ONLY the Catholic Church followed this (all others have ignored it)?






Where is the evidence of that? And why then has every Orthodox Church not followed it? Why does the Catholic Church have a UNIQUE collection that NO OTHER HAS EVER agreed with?






Nope. They all have DIFFERENT collections. Always have. Still do. None other accepts the post-Trent Catholic set except for the post-Trent Catholic Church.






Not a word about how the Bishop in Rome is the singular, infallible anything....

Not a word about how all Orthodox Churches follow the western regional synod at Carthage but obviously have no idea what it said since no Orthodox Church has ever agreed with it.


Here's what Catholic Answer says about this:

Question: Do Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have the same canon of Scripture? ​

Answer: the Eastern Orthodox have a different canon of Scripture.​

It does on to note just SOME of the differences between the various Eastern Orthodox Bibles and the post-Trent RCC collection. So.... if the Orthodox churches all obey this western synod at Carthage as authoritative/binding/ecumenical/definitive, why do none of them follow it?






Yes, the singular Catholic Church had, by its tradition, a UNIQUE Bible with a UNIQUE set of books in it (most with the Epistle to the Leodiceans - 28 NT books). The tome he was familiar with was not like ANY Orthodox bible.... and not like the Catholic Bible you have.

Luther INCLUDED all the books that the RCC later did - except for one, he left out the Epistle to the Leodiceans. And he included one MORE the RCC at Trent left out. To this day, some Catholics are complaining about him deleting that book. But his translation actually had one MORE book in it than your post-Trent Catholic one, because that book existed in all Bibles in Germany. But Trent ripped it out. So, Luther's translation had the SAME number of books in it that yours does...but with two differences. I agree, he had no authority to remove the only book he did (The Epistle to the Leodiceans) but then Trent had no authority to remove the book Luther left in. But note: Lutheranism has no official position on this topic, it views that this is something for the WHOLE church, not just one segment of it like the Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican or Reformed or LDS.




.

Josiah,

The fact that, prior to the Reformation, all three major Christian groups included the 7 books we know as the deuterocanonicals in their canons shows that at some point in the past there was unanimity among Christians as their canonicity. Whether some of these groups had a few extra books is not relevant to that point. The common point is that the Church adopted the Septuagint from an early time. The Council of Rome, with the Pope listed them as canonical but they were not saying something new, just confirming what was already in place.

Your claim that the early Church used only the 66 books has no basis in fact. Your only attempt at evidence was that the Council of Jamnia excluded them from the Jewish canon. A claim that has been shown to be false.

Other than that you have provided no evidence to back up your claims, just your opinions.

If you cannot have any evidence then there is no point in continuing with this.

Blessings

 

[Stephen]

I believe there is an article in there by Raymond E. Brown (an excellent scholar) covering the Jamnia topic.

Yes, I've found it and had a quick read. The whole situation regarding the OT canon is very complicated.

Thank you for directing me to that article.
Blessings

 

[Origen]

Yes, I've found it and had a quick read. The whole situation regarding the OT canon is very complicated.

Indeed it is.

Thank you for directing me to that article.
Blessings

You are welcome and I am glad you found it helpful.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah,

The fact that, prior to the Reformation......,

Brother,

.... there was no formal, official declaration of Christianity as to the content of the canon. STILL has not been.

.... your denomination in common practice had a UNIQUE Bible that NO OTHER accepted or agreed with (still the case today); a UNIQUE understanding of what exactly is the content of the canon, a UNIQUE Tradition.

.... Contrary to what some Catholics ignorantly state, Luther's personal translation only removed one book from the common Catholic tomes of his day, the Epistle to the Leodiceans - which the RCC's meeting at Trent also excluded. As far as DEUTERO books go, his translation had one MORE book in it than your modern, post-Trent, unique Catholic collection.



My point (and sorry, it's just history) is that what Christians regard as canonical/normative inscripturated words of God is a matter of TRADITION, not official ecumenical declaration. But while it is ancient and remarkable, it is NOT perfect. It is strongest on the 66. Less so for an additional 7-12, less so for another dozen or so.

Your claim that the early Church used only the 66 books

...Is a claim I never made.

Early Christians used HUNDREDS of books. Today, Catholics use THOUSANDS of books - some a lot more than they use the Bible and especially a lot more than some number of DEUTERO books (I don't think any of my extensive Catholic family has read any of those... or can even name more than 2 or 3 of them). Protestants also use THOUSANDS of books - a lot of them more than many biblical ones (how many Christians have read Numbers or Zephaniah?).



What I've challenged is that your modern, post-Trent, UNIQUE Roman Catholic Church set of canonical books is THE officially, formally, ecumenically declared set of exactly what is canonical/normative. No. Your individual, singular denomination (since the 16th Century anyway) has its UNIQUE tradition on this. So do various Orthodox denominations. So does the Anglican Communion. So do Reformed churches. The differences in TRADITION exists (it's not perfect), but amazingly irrelevant - only brought up by those who think their denomination should lord it over all others.... or by those unaware that their denomination's tradition on this is NOT that of all Christianity but indeed is unique.




A blessed Lenten season to you and yours...


Josiah




.

 

[Stephen]

Brother,

.... there was no formal, official declaration of Christianity as to the content of the canon. STILL has not been.

.... your denomination in common practice had a UNIQUE Bible that NO OTHER accepted or agreed with (still the case today); a UNIQUE understanding of what exactly is the content of the canon, a UNIQUE Tradition.

.... Contrary to what some Catholics ignorantly state, Luther's personal translation only removed one book from the common Catholic tomes of his day, the Epistle to the Leodiceans - which the RCC's meeting at Trent also excluded. As far as DEUTERO books go, his translation had one MORE book in it than your modern, post-Trent, unique Catholic collection.



My point (and sorry, it's just history) is that what Christians regard as canonical/normative inscripturated words of God is a matter of TRADITION, not official declaration. But while it is ancient and remarkable, it is not PERFECT. It is strongest on the 66. Less so for an additional 7-12, less so for another dozen or so. I don't know why the concept of TRADITION is so offensive to you as a Catholic (it's usually Protestants who are troubled by this being a matter of Tradition).







Is a claim I never made...

Early Christians used HUNDREDS of books. Today, Catholics use THOUSANDS of books - some a lot more than they use the Bible and especially a lot more than some number of DEUTERO books (I don't think any of my extensive Catholic family has read any of those... or can even name more than 2 or 3 of them). Protestants also use THOUSANDS of books - a lot of them more than many biblical ones (how many Christians have read Numbers or Zephaniah?).



What I've challenged is that your modern, post-Trent, UNIQUE Roman Catholic Church set of canonical books is THE officially, formally, ecumenically declared set of exactly what is canonical/normative. No. Your individual, singular denomination (since the 16th Century anyway) has its UNIQUE tradition on this. So do various Orthodox denominations. So does the Anglican Communion. So do Reformed churches. The differences in TRADITION exists (it's not perfect), but amazingly irrelevant - only brought up by those who think their denomination should lord it over all others.... or by those unaware that their denomination's tradition on this is NOT that of all Christianity but indeed is unique.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours...


Josiah

.

I note your opinions.

 

[FredVB]

Ripping out the message of the gospel of Christ or a part of it, as any part of the gospel message is essential, would have one not be saved, and such a one would perish.

A book missing is not the same thing. People are saved even where a Bible has not been seen. The gospel is the essential thing. Bibles are still desirable wherever they are not seen, for believers. But where Bibles are for believers, they should not have things missing that are important to the gospel.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Like Martin Luther ripping out James Jude and revelation?

or the tradition of men under king James deleting whole books and chapters like dan 13 the faith story of Susana?

 

[Josiah]

Like Martin Luther ripping out James Jude and revelation?

Show me where Luther excluded those 3 books from his German translation.... You won't. And we all know why.

Reality that every Catholic known to me admits (until you), Luther INCLUDED those books. He INCLUDED every book that the Catholic Church later would offically embrace PLUS ONE, his tome had one MORE book in it than your modern, post-Trent, unique Catholic Bible.

Yes, a FEW Catholics used to say "But he DID exclude one book from the New Testament - it just wasn't James or Jude or Revelation." They refer to the Epistle to the Leodiceans, a book commonly found in Catholic tomes for over 1000 years, YES, he DID choose to NOT include that in his German translation - but technically your church never did officially put it in so it's impossible for Luther to rip it out. But Luther's Bible has EXACTLY 27 books in the NT - exactly the same number as in your modern, post Trent Catholic Bible. And his Old Testament has one MORE book in it than your modern, post-Trent, Cathoiic Bible.

It amazes me when I read this stuff..... PURE fiction, PURE myth.... that any Catholic teacher will tell you is a lie. But ir keeps being perpetuated (without regard for truth). Now to be fair, there are certainly MYTHS (lies!) about the Catholic Church that get perpetuated too. No one has a monopoly on speading lies against brothers and sisters.... but it's very sad to see.

BTW, the post-Trent Catholic Bible has FEWER books in it than any other apostolic church - fewer than the Greek Orthodox, fewer than the Russian Orthodox, fewer than the Syrian Orthodox, fewer than the Coptic Orthodox - fewer than ANY other apostolic church. Indeed, fewer than the Anglican/Episcopalian Bible, fewer than Luther's Bible. So, if having fewer books than some other church means some were "RIPPED OUT" then your church ripped out a BUNCH of books.


Brother, you clearly have not read this thread. Perhaps you should before you jump in. ALL of it.


.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

He may have it in a version but he said that James Jude and rev are not inspired

Have you ever read dan 13 most people who claim the name of Christ have never heard of it cos of the tradition of men’s KJV