COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Bible: It's a Catholic Book

TO ALL LOVERS OF THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

(2 Peter 3:15-16)


There are a lot of accusations from non-Catholics that Catholics hated the Bible in anyway. This, of course, is nonsense, like all the stories about monasteries and convents being dens of corruption, or Catholics paying money to have their sins forgiven. But what are the facts? Is it true? Or have people - even convincing some ignorant Catholics themselves - built up mountains of falsehood? We have to look at things intelligently, calmly considering the facts of history, not its prejudices and lies. Then we shall see that the Catholic Church

•has truly been the parent, the maker under God of the Bible;

•has guarded and defended it through the ages, and preserved it from error and destruction;

•has always held the Bible in the highest veneration and esteem, and has based all its teachings on it;

•is the only one to possess the true Bible and the whole Bible, so that copies of the Scriptures not approved by the Catholic Church are defective; and

•has kept and protected the Scriptures ensuring whatever is in them is true.

When it comes to the Bible, we can thank God for its preservation and the fact that it has been handed on. We can admire the Church for its vigilance, zeal, and unswerving faithfulness to the mission entrusted to us by Almighty God.

Let’s face it squarely, first the Church, then the New Testament.
*okay*
«13

Comments

  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    As the founder of Protestantism himself admits: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all."--Martin Luther, commentary on St. John. It's a brave admission by Protestantism's founder. I hope our Protestant brothers, instead of denying the obvious, would accept this fact.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    If It is true that Catholics have the true Bible why do they have to add things to the Old Testament. Remember that Jesus and the Apostles often referenced the Old Testaments.

    "Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch"

    "The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture."

    "The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach or Ben Sira), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The canon of the Greek Orthodox community also includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix."

    "Are these lost books of the Bible?"
    http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm


    What books does the Tanakh or the Jewish Bible contain?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Books_of_the_Tanakh

    Additionals:

    "Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?"
    http://www.carm.org/catholic/church_scripture.htm

    "What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? (sola Scriptura)"
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html
  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    easter wrote:
    If It is true that Catholics have the true Bible why do they have to add things to the Old Testament.

    Easter, the canon of the Bible as we know now was first completed at the Council of Hippo in 392 AD, and then ratified at the Council of Carthage in 419 AD. That was 1000 years before Luther. Both Councils had it as 73 books. Luther, detesting what was in those 7 books, took them out and put them in an index. He as well wanted to take out James ('an epistle of straw', he said. Hhmm...I wonder why he said that?), Jude and Revelation ('an uninspired epistle', he said of it), because they too do not fit into his theology. The Catholic Church then, in response to Luther's action, upheld both Hippo and Carthage over Luther in the Council of Trent. So, there you go. Easter, you have a lot to know about how the Bible came to be.

    Now, why were the 7 books not included by the Jews? In 90 AD, the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called, and from there condemned that sect (Christianity) with curses. They as well removed those books which do not have any Hebrew equivalent of it to separate their canon from that which Christians used, which was the Septuagint. It is interesting to note, easter, that the Protestant Old Testament canon is similar to the anti-Christian canon of the Jews. It is also interesting to note that Jesus as well as Paul often quoted from the Deuterocanonicals (Apocyrpha for you Prots), thus again belying the claim made by Protestants that the Deuterocanonicals were not used at all and only later inserted by the Church. In fact, some Protestant Bible scholars are seriously considering bringing back the 7 books into Protestant Bibles, saying that it was a mistake for Luther to have taken them out.

    Finally, easter, here is the portion of the canon from the Council of Carthage. Note very well that this was 1000 years before Luther and the Deformation:

    CANON XXIV.

    That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

    ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

    But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

    * Genesis
    * Exodus
    * Leviticus
    * Numbers
    * Deuteronomy
    * Joshua the Son of Nun
    * The Judges
    * Ruth
    * The Kings (4 books)
    * The Chronicles (2 books)
    * Job
    * The Psalter
    * The Five books of Solomon
    * The Twelve Books of the Prophets
    * Isaiah
    * Jeremiah
    * Ezechiel
    * Daniel
    * Tobit
    * Judith
    * Esther
    * Ezra (2 books)
    * Macchabees (2 books)

    The New Testament:

    * The Gospels (4 books)
    * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
    * The Epistles of Paul (14)
    * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
    * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
    * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
    * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
    * The Revelation of John (1 book)

    Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Pope Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

    I highlighted the last part to emhpasize something, easter: these Scripture which Carthage ratified was already used prior to it, though not yet formally made into the present canon prior to Hippo and Carthage. So, for 400 years early Christianity didn't have the Bible as we know it now, and for 1000 years before Luther Christianity had all 73 books in the canon before Luther decided it is his own authority to take those which do not fit his views. Tell me now, easter, who is the true liar?
  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    joelb wrote:

    Thank you, joelb, for that link. In case easter doesn't like to read the links we give, I'll copy and paste some salient points from the link given:

    The following books (almost 1/3rd of the books of the Protestant Old Testament) are NOWHERE quoted or even alluded to: Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum.

    Oohh--easter, maybe you Protestants should start removing those books as well, since you Protestants claim Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the Deuterocanonicals.

    So using this criteria, there should only be 27 books (instead of 39) in the Protestant bible, and pagan poets should be a part of scripture.--my point exactly, easter.

    Protestant Douglas DeLacy has a commentary on Romans 1 in his Tyndale New Testament Lecture. He writes "More significant is the fact that Paul often alludes to or uses ideas parallel to and apparently drawn from certain apocryphal books, notably the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Also known as Sirach)." In footnote 19 he writes "Compare Romans 1:18 and following with the Book of Wisdom 13:1-5." 'Image and Incarnation in Pauline Christology', vol. 30, Tyndale Bulletin, 1979, pp. 3-28.

    Not only do you not seem to know your own Bible, easter, but you've been lied to by your pastors by making such a claim against the Church. Now a fellow Protestant debunks your own notion.

    So, you see easter, it was not the Catholic Church which added books, but Luther which removed them. Again, easter, tell us now, who is the liar? And as well, I've already posted about the Early Church Fathers do not believe in sola scriptura. They do believe in sola verbum Dei--the word of God only, which means that God's word can be found both in Scripture and in the Church's Tradition.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    But Joelb why are these books not in the Jewish Bible in the first place? Let's say he really quoted what those said there, he was proabably just doing it for emphasis.
  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    easter wrote:
    But Joelb why are these books not in the Jewish Bible in the first place? Let's say he really quoted what those said there, he was proabably just doing it for emphasis.

    Easter, I've explained why the Jews removed those 7 books:

    Now, why were the 7 books not included by the Jews? In 90 AD, the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called, and from there condemned that sect (Christianity) with curses. They as well removed those books which do not have any Hebrew equivalent of it to separate their canon from that which Christians used, which was the Septuagint. It is interesting to note, easter, that the Protestant Old Testament canon is similar to the anti-Christian canon of the Jews. It is also interesting to note that Jesus as well as Paul often quoted from the Deuterocanonicals (Apocyrpha for you Prots), thus again belying the claim made by Protestants that the Deuterocanonicals were not used at all and only later inserted by the Church. In fact, some Protestant Bible scholars are seriously considering bringing back the 7 books into Protestant Bibles, saying that it was a mistake for Luther to have taken them out.

    So, again to reiterate, the Jews removed the 7 books to separate themselves from that sect, which is of course, Christianity. Now, it should be noted that the Jews wouldn't do that if the early Christians did not use the Septuagint in the first place So there you can see that early Christians already used the Old Testament canon as Hippo and Carthage would affirm.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    The Septaguint was just added. It was written in 300 to 100 BC. Way before the last book of the of the Old Testament which was Malachi in 450 BC.

    http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

    As regards to the Jewish Council of Jamnia.

    "Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon."

    http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm

    Additional:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    easter wrote:
    But Joelb why are these books not in the Jewish Bible in the first place? Let's say he really quoted what those said there, he was proabably just doing it for emphasis.


    Nevertheless, Jesus and the Apostles quoted from them.

    Canon to the Jews or not, the fact that the Son of God and His immediate followers quoted and referenced these books proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they accepted them as real (as in tangible), inspired and worthy of study.

    Besides, are you a Jew who follows their books and laws? Or a Christian who follows Christ in all He says and does?

    If the Son of GOD quotes from them, shouldn't you? Or do you deem yourself above Him so that you can consider wrong what Jesus Christ HIMSELF considered right (like Luther did)?
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    joelb wrote:
    If the Son of GOD quotes from them, shouldn't you? Or do you deem yourself above Him so that you can consider wrong what He considered right (like Luther did)?

    I will never deem myself above Him. In fact if you read carefully we are not putting on traditions as above or equal to the Word of God.
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    easter wrote:
    I will never deem myself above Him. In fact if you read carefully we are not putting on traditions as above or equal to the Word of God.

    Then you only consider yourself above His Apostles then?

    For in denying the existence, importance or weight of traditions, you countermand what the Apostle says in 2Thessalonians 2:15, which I quote:

    "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

    Emphasis mine.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    Ganito na lang eh, if the early Jews did not recognized the apocrypha as inspired Word of God, then Jesus and His apostles do not as well. Why?

    IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS!

    http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm

    http://www.letusreason.org/RC17.htm

    The Apocrypha only resurfaced in the 16th Century because the Catholic Church wanted to to answer the tirades of Luther.

    Who is now putting himself above the Scriptures?
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    easter wrote:
    Who is now putting himself above the Scriptures?

    It seems you are brother easter. Because you are quoting from anything but Scripture. It's paradoxical actually. You hold on to Sola Sriptura, which holds Scripture as sufficient in and unto itself, and yet you reference analyses that are outside of Scripture.

    These links you cited are analyses. They are man-made and subject to error. If stick to what Scripture truly says (and not some man-made analysis), then you won't be able to deny the truth of what has been said by our brothers losav and Millardo.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    JoelB it is not only I who are referencing analyses here. Even the earliest posts here are not original thoughts. It has been the thoughts of men and women for hundreds of years. It has been argued for centuries now and the things you see here are not orginal and have been the basis of arguments of hundreds of years.

    We are using here man-made analyses to defend the point. This is called Apologetics. The others are using them too.

    If you can see the point of my posts is to uphold Sola Scriptura.

    Sola Scriptura is holding God's Word as sole authority. Why?

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1-2)

    This is what the Word says and man uses apologetics to defend it. Please take note that the Bible instructs man to defend the Word of God.

    "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Pet. 3:15)

    God Bless!
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    Absolutely brother easter. We are in complete agreement with you on those points.

    What I cannot understand is the concept of Sola Scriptura. I mean if Paul says to hold fast to traditions both written and oral, why would we only accept what is written? Isn't that going against a directive of an Apostle, one which Jesus Christ Himself imbued with authority when He said in John 20: 19-onwards "As the Father has sent me, so I send you.", and "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    In any case, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are two points of contention that can be discussed separately. They're the pillars of the Reformation and have been well-demolished before by one of my favorite authors Dr. Scott Hahn. They're linked and somewhat essential to our discussion right now but the main topic should come back to the fore.

    The plain and simple fact is that if one does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church, one is obliged to toss out his Bible. This is because the Bible has been compiled by the Catholic Church. If one does not recognize it's authority, why would you acknowledge any document cited by it as true?
  • joelbjoelb techiegamer PExer
    Oh, and one last thing:
    easter wrote:
    IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS!

    Correction: They were Jews. When they became Apostles and Disciples, they became Christians. Are you a Jew brother easter, or a Christian?

    As Christians, we are obliged to believe the Word of God (in the person of Jesus, written and oral) in its entirety. Taking, preaching and believing the Word of God piecemeal is serving yourself my friend, not Jesus Christ.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    joelb wrote:
    The plain and simple fact is that if one does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church, one is obliged to toss out his Bible. This is because the Bible has been compiled by the Catholic Church. If one does not recognize it's authority, why would you acknowledge any document cited by it as true?

    You don't recognize the Catholic Church and you throw away the Bible? Isn't this the one we were arguing earlier on who is putting himself above the Scriptures?

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1-2)

    The Beginning was God not the Catholic Church. We have the Bible preserved not because of the Jews, not because of Catholics and yes say it not even because Evangelical Christians!

    WE HAVE THE BIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS SUPERNATURALLY PRESERVED FOR US BY GOD.

    And even in the end an when this world fades away, God's Word will still be there!

    "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:35)
  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    easter wrote:
    The Septaguint was just added. It was written in 300 to 100 BC. Way before the last book of the of the Old Testament which was Malachi in 450 BC.

    As stated by joelb, you must be above Jesus Himself and the Apostles if you think the Septuagint is not inspired or should be in the Bible. As well, if we take your premise to its logical conclusion, then we have to conclude that the New Testament should not be in the Bible, since it was just added to (or a continuation of) the Old Testament, was written somewhere after 100 BC, way after Malachi, and in no way recognized by the Jews. As asked by joelb, are Jewish, easter?
    "Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon."

    Again, this would have to be proved by Protestant themselves. Since clearly Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint, what makes Protestants think they have it better than the Lord Himself by removing those which He Himself referenced? Again, it would have to be your notion stacked up against what the Lord Himself did.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file