Didn’t the Catholic Church add to the Bible?
Didn’t the Catholic Church add to the Bible?
Full Question
A lot of people have accused the Catholic Church of adding unscriptural texts to the Bible. How true is this claim?
Answer
The first thing you need to know is that those seven books are called the deuterocanonical books. They are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.
Unscriptural
Also, the label “unscriptural” was something the Protestant Reformers cooked up in the 16th century to appeal to people. Everyone has to have something for which they fight the Church if they want to break away, right? They hated these books because many portions of these books contradict elements of their doctrine—for instance, the direct mention of praying for the dead, which supports Catholic belief in Purgatory. So, there you go, that’s the excuse to eliminate these books from the canon.
These books are not unscriptural, well, unless they are misinterpreted. It is worth noting that the first-century Christians, including Jesus and the Apostles, effectively considered these books canonical. They have been known to quote from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are alluded to in the New Testament.
“While the New Testament never directly quotes from or names these books, the apostles most frequently used and quoted the Septuagint, which includes them. Some say there is a correspondence of thought, and others see texts from these books being paraphrased, referred or alluded to many times in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline epistles, depending in large measure on what is counted as a reference”
Wikipedia
Canons
Another point: the canon of the entire Bible was basically settled around the turn of the fourth century. Until then, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains.
There were no less than five different instances when the Church formally identified the canon: the Council of Hippo in 393, Synod of Rome in 382, Council of Carthage in 397, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius in 405, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419. In all these cases, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. So, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision on this matter.
Over 1000 years
By the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books we do for more than 1100 years – i.e., 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament – and thus considered them inspired.
Then came Martin Luther, who decided, on his own authority, to drop the deuterocanonical books. Other protestants chose to follow his lead on the matter. This is so weird because they preach the unbiblical, ahistorical “sola scriptura,” – which means nothing can be added or removed from the Scriptures. Luther, with other protestants, clearly violate their own doctrine.
Didn’t the Catholic Church add to the Bible?
These books were written originally in Greek, not hebrew, and the reformers believed that a truly inspired, scriptural book would have been written in Hebrew by Hebrews…
Fred, This is the position of two groups. The anti-Christian Jews who were seeing the Church as a threat to Judaism and their later allies in anti-Catholic thinking, the protestant reformers. These books could not possibly be inspired because of the language they were written in? If they were written in Hebrew, then they would be inspired? Why is that? I guess God couldn’t speak Greek? Seriously though, when the dead sea scrolls were found, it was discovered that lo and behold, they were written in Hebrew. So, by your argument, they must at least be legitimate candidates for inspired works. The fact that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which had these books, is good enough for me. Heck, if Greek writing excludes a writing from being inspired, please keep in mind that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. Do you reject the entire New Testament?
Hi. I’m Jewish so didn’t have a dog in this fight. 2 Maccabees ain’t holy for me. However, the idea that a book written by Jews could contain support for purgatory or intercessory prayer struck me as odd.
I checked out the cited chapter. Mentions nothing about purgatory. It’s actually making a point that Yehudah as a Pharisee (IE be believed in the ressurection of the dead.)
There is no mention of purgatory in any Old Testament or New Testament writing either Blake – only in the writings of some humans of the R.C. Biblically there is either Heaven or Hell
I’m an ex catholic, thank the Goddess. Looking back at the histories of the westernized version of a primitive middle-eastern religion proves just two things….Those in charge wanted to have the wealth of the “followers”, and rule by fear with what they said the bible said, I.E., having a bible in the middle ages was a death-penalty offense by “normal “(peasants) people.The ones in charge of the religions are very little different than the blood-thirsty desert war god that the goat-herders were inspired to “worship”. They got away from the true Gods and Goddesses, where there is no ruling “heirarchy” like the modern religions have, that only worship power and wealth. “Paul” was a fraud that taught his own “jesus”, and the first five books of the OT are blatant copies of Sumerian history. So sad, everyone has to split hairs over the spiritual equivalent of children “playing doctor”.
The only difference i see about the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church is that the Catholics not only follow Scripture but also Tradition. And Transubstantiation…A true Catholic believes with all his heart . When Jesus in the last Supper Said” eat of this, this is my body which will be given up for the sins of the world,..drink of this cup for it is my blood of the NEW and everlasting covenant (promise) which i have set between me and thee. Do both in memory of me…and I will raise you up on the last day and you shall have everlasting life.” The men that left the table were appalled at this and thought Jesus to be crazy…because Jesus meant what he said in a literal sense….hard for them to believe he really meant it….but what they failed to understand about this is that….what.he meant is that he will live always be in our hearts and our soul by eating the bread and drinking the wine….And if God is all powerful and his word is bond then why is it so hard to believe that he could do exactly that. Believe his word ,,,the words he gave to the Apostel,,his parables given to us to make right choices The Scriptures , that were fulfilled . Jesus is with me, not just in Mind (Scripture only), but in body and soul and that is what he wants us to believe….what good is it for you to believe he is only in Mind (Scripture only) but not in body and Soul..(Transubstantiation). You can’t only believe part of him…..you have to believe in all of him. And if he came to you right now….and said to you ….here,,,eat of this for this is my body which has been given up for your sins, and here drink this cup, for this is my blood of the New and everlasting covenant between me and thee and I will raise you up on the last day and you shall have everlasting life,,,,would you walk away from him…would you think he is crazy.? Or would you gladly eat and drink….and take him at his word? If he were in front of you right now and said to you….I want you to eat this bread and drink this wine,,,for it is my body and my blood…..would you just call him crazy and walk away….because that is what every person does for not believing . Believe and he will raise you up on the last day….Believe and he will give you everlasting life. Jesus does not want you to believe just in Scriptures but in the Gospel. The parables where for lessons to learn to make right choices. I as a Catholic believe in the Gospel, the Scriptures, the lessons. I believe not only in faith but if my work in faith is good,
If I am bringing people to God through my works and my faith, through my prayers. As a Catholic…I believe in confession….I can go directly to God and I do often…but if my sins are heavy I go to a Priest I can trust and I hear God forgiving me. When I die God will not fault me for my faith and what I was taught. I was taught to do right and not wrong…If believing in all of Gods teaching were wrong then let me be wrong….God has never taught evil, ever. The Apostles wrote the Gospel according to Jesus words to them,,,,they wrote out the Scripture so that his work was fulfilled accordingly. He gave them the power to remember what he taught them. They were his secretaries and his witnesses to his teachings. They did not make any of this writings up…God was not a vivid of their imagination. Evidence has proven that to be a fact. So to say only half the bible using only Scriptures is true…is to say God was not all truth….and because there are some religions out there that only want to believe what they want to believe according to what they have read in the bible .does not mean that God lied…..were you there? Did you hear first hand what Jesus said to his Apostles? Luther did not want to believe in Transubstantiation,,,he walked away from what was true about Jesus…but I bet you he found out the truth when he met his maker. What do you think? How much so you want to bet ,,,if Luther was here now in this time and age that he would tell you he was wrong,,,everything he taught you was wrong . Would you call Luther a liar.? because he would have gotten it first hand from Jesus at that point. I read every single comment here and I find it incredible that with all the evidence Jesus has given us ….we still argue about what is true and what is false. The Protestant are so gun ho on trying to prove the Catholics are wrong on everything but they have yet to prove that they are right. Why do I say that,,,I say it because you rely on Sola Scripture and nothing else, You don’t see anything else , even when evidence is given to you…you refuse to accept it as truth. You don’t go by faith,,,everything has to be proven to you and even still you don’t believe…you have your doubts…all because someone gave you false information…. You ask Catholics to prove they are right. But you need to prove you are right yourself and you haven’t been able to do that all all. Yes Catholics aren’t perfect,,,they make mistakes,,,but they learn from their mistakes….now I won’t deny that their are some very bad Catholics and if they don’t change their ways ,,,they will not make it….but , there are a whole lot of Protestants out there that are very un-perfect and yet won’t even admit to there imperfections. They carry on like all is good. and that is a very sad thing. That hurts Jesus deeply. I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ his only son who was conceived by Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary ,was suffered under Pontius Pilate , was crucified , died and was buried. I believe he rose from the dead on the Third Day, was assended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father Almighty. I believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe in One Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church I believe in the Communion of Saints the forgiveness of sins and the everlasting life .. That is what I believe. And I know that God is not going to punish me for that belief….that faith, because it is my faith. He words…His Gospel his Scriptures his works, his miracles, his parables, his faith, his unconditional love and his commandments a few of which I failed on……all are his of which I believe and have great faith in….,my life i am still working on…I am a process which God is still working on….he has not perfected me yet…when his perfection is complete….it is then when he will call me home.
Wilda it is wonderful to read of your faith in God. I admire you, though I don’t agree with all you’ve said. As Protestants we believe in Sola Scriptura, as you say and put God and His clear Word above all of the teachings of man should there be conflict. I love the hearts of my Catholic brothers and sisters and together, as we look to Christ, we will remain brothers and sisters in Him.
Alan you are like Thomas who needs proof first before he will believe, well where is your faith?
Wow! All I can say is that a lot people believe so many myths about the Catholic Church without ever checking to see if those things have any validity at all. Take it from me, a former Protestant par-excellant, that these myths I’ve read here are easily debunked by any reasonable study of history.
Talk is cheap Rod. Debunk my points with evidence please.
Take it from me, a protestant who taught in the Catholic secondary school system for more than 20 years, they don’t teach the truth of the Word of God. By year 12 most are either agnostic if not atheist. Even at this level there is much to be desired. Today, rather than burn heretics they embrace them and accept their heresies and liberal lifestyles. Rod I don’t know what type of protestant you were, but you can’t have been too Bible based.
Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was given the keys of heaven? The way I read it Jesus has them.
Marcela read Matthew’s Gospel 16: 13-19
Jesus asks His disciples who men say He is.They answer John the Baptist etc..
He then asks them: ‘Who do you say I am?’ Peter quickly offers this response: ‘You are the Christ’. Christ was not Jesus’ surname but was his office/calling…It means the Anointed One of God.
Jesus said to Peter that God had revealed this to him- that Jesus is the Anointed of God He went on to say that upon this revelation He would build His church. The key that Peter had was the revelation of Who Jesus is (not a tangible key as such) the Anointed Son of God.
When we read in Matthew 28 we see a transference of that authority from the ascended Christ to His followers (not just Peter but to all). In Acts chapter 2 we see the giving of the Holy Spirit to the 120 in the Upper Room – not just to Peter and the 12. As we read further we see God’s power and authority distributed to the church at large.
The Catholic error is that they teach Peter alone as the recipient of this power and authority. And that somehow this man in Rome (Pope) is the ongoing bastion of same. This is fallacy and cannot be supported scripturally. Hence the Catholic problem with sola scriptura (only scripture) as the sole authority of God’s will and purpose to mankind. Their fallacy is only supported by their traditions – the traditions of man – not God.
Mathew 16:19.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is giving Peter authority over His Church which He says He will build upon Peter, the rock. Any other interpretation of this chapter is blatant eisegesis, and believe me, I’ve heard some real doozies.
Jesus said you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. The Aramaic for Rock is Kephas (Cephas). Guess what else Kephas translates to in Aramaic….Peter! It is Peter, not Peter’s faith or Peter’s statement that Jesus is the Mesiah, it is Peter. Jesus knows He will leave them soon and He is passing on His earthly authority to administer and lead His Church to Peter. So Jesus was renaming Simon to Peter (Kephas) and said to him “You are Kephas and upon this Kephas I shall build my Church. In the Bible, when God changes someone’s name, he is making them a leader, Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc. He only changed Peters name that day, no one else’s. Clearly singling out Peter as the leader of His Church. Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Back in the day, that was significant. A leader of a kingdom would leave someone in charge in his absence and that person would be given the keys to the kingdom. Everybody back then knew this because that was very clear, common and well understood thing back then. Throughout the NT, Peter is seen as the leader of the Church. There has been an unbroken line of Popes since Peter right up to today since the gates of hell shall not and has not prevailed against it. The Church did not change into a different church when Linus followed Peter or Cletus followed Linus or Clement followed Cletus or…well ever. So the Church that Jesus started that must still be around today since the gates of hell shall not prevail, was given to Peter to lead and it was then passed to Linus, etc. right up to Francis today. This is the Catholic Church. All 30,000 – 40,000 protestant churches can trace their roots back to a man, Martin Luther who broke from Jesus’ Church and started his own man-made church. If there is, as the Bible says, only one Church, then which one is it? The one started by Jesus and passed on for almost 2000 years or one of the 30,000+ started by Luther and those who broke away from him?
I thought you would be snapping at my comments Bob. Talk about eisegesis, your statement is riddled with it.
There is absolutely no scriptural verification or exegesis for the claims made by you and the Catholic church. Read Matthew 28 and Mark 16 and Acts 2 etc. and you will see clearly that authority is given to the believer, not to a select few or an individual. Sure, Peter led the church in Jerusalem but there is no evidence to suggest that his apostleship was passed to another. Rather the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was to the many to ensure the propagation of the Gospel.
If anything, God used Paul to truly establish the church and bring revelation to the followers of Jesus. The New Testament epistles are about 90% Pauline. Peter contributed two Epistles only. Peter was definitely important in establishing the early church but you Catholics are rather skewed in your belief re. the Apostolic mantle being passed to successive Popes. There is NO scripture which refers to this only the eisegesis of Rome. It is convenient how Rome does not adhere to Sola Scriptura because if you and they did, there is no chance you could make the false teaching you adhere to. To Protestants, the teaching of Catholic tradition is largely meaningless, particularly when you try to refute Scripture by it.
There were reasons for the Protestant Reformations: the lies and errors of Rome. Your beloved Popes believed salvation could be bought and sold (Indulgences) for example. Hence the denouncement of Rome by Martin Luther. Borgia thought it was okay to seduce women and sire Papal children. Others thought it fair and reasonable to murder dissenters. Please!! If this is the mantle of Peter, give me a break.
The current Pope is happy to pray with the leaders of pagan religions and is actively working towards a one world religion. Talk about eisegesis.
How could any fair minded individual believe that the Church of Rome is of God?
There is a very good reason that the Church does not adhere to the heresy of sola scripture. IT’S NOT BIBLICAL! The bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH, not a book. For over 1500 years the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) has truthfully taught that the pope is the leader of the Church. Then, 1500 years go by and along comes this one little heretic and he starts teaching a heresy and leading multitudes into hell. I guess until the Catholic Church put together the canon of the bible in the 4th century, there was no church, no christianity, nothing.
Amusing Bob. How can you accuse anyone of eisegesis if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura? There is no Scripture which states that the church is the font of all wisdom. If there is I must have missed it, so please feel free to supply it. What do you make of scriptures like this:
Psalm 138:2 (NKJV) “I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; for you have magnified Your word above all Your name.” or
John 1:14 (KJV) ” And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”.
If God puts His Word above His Name and the Word became flesh (Jesus), then maybe the Word (scripture) is considered more valid and reliable than anything else.
The authenticity of the Word of God is verified time and time again via archaeology, history and prophecy. Many of the edicts of the Catholic church have been shown to be flawed, unscriptural and have led men to physical and spiritual death.
Why was there no other church before 1500? I can think of many reasons. Most people were uneducated with literacy rates being very low. Schooling back in distant times was primarily given in the church and obvious biases would have been taught. The Bible was only available and usually chained to the church pulpit. Even if men could read it was only written in Latin. One of the crimes by an early reformer of the 1300’s was that of John Wycliffe who dared to translate the scriptures into English. Even after his death the Catholic Church disinterred his body, burnt his remains and threw them into the river.
The R.C. Church ruled men through fear of death and punishment. The Popes were political leaders who controlled European kings and people who were largely in ignorance of God’s Word and fear of their power.
From the 1500’s men became brave enough to point out Catholic heresy but were often murdered for it. The Catholic Church has oppressed and misled millions over the years. God has now set His people free from this yoke of bondage
You have conveniently not addressed any of the heresies I mentioned eg. Indulgences, murder of enemies/heretics, creation of ‘Holy War’ (Crusades) and said that men killed in these wars would receive a ticket to Heaven, etc..
You haven’t told me how a Catholic receives salvation in your estimation. You haven’t given any scriptural evidence for Papal succession from Peter.
The trouble with putting the Catholic Church above the Word of God is that it puts mankind at the mercy and direction of other men and not of God. Very dangerous – as proven by History.
Hi Alan. I can point out cases of eisegesis independent of sola scriptura. Why would one be dependent on the other?
There is no scripture that states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth??? Seriously? Yes, yes you did indeed miss it. 1 Timothy 3:15. As for the verses you give, I like them. They in no way prove sola scriptura unless, dare I say it…eisegesis once again.
It actually sounds like you are saying there was no church before 1500. I don’t even know where to start with that one. Maybe Mathew 16:18. Jesus founded a Church and to say it didn’t exist until Luther came along is, well, ridiculous. And yes, it is Church, singular, not plural. One Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
FYI, the Catholic Church was the first to produce the bible in the language of the people, including English, before Wycliffe was even born. Wycliffe produced heretical bibles. Of course bibles were chained to the pulpit. They were fantastically expensive. It was to prevent theft, not to keep the Word from anyone. As I said before, the Catholic Church produced the bible in native languages as early as the 7th century in French, German and English. A 9th century translation of the Bible in to English (Anglo-Saxon the dialect of its time) was created and by 1361 a translation of most of Scripture in the English dialect (Anglo-Norman) of its time had been executed. This was twenty years before Wycliffe’s 1381 translation. Briefly the following will show how the Catholic Church has tried to keep the bible out of the hands of the people so they could not read it themselves .
7th century – First French translation
7th Century – First German translation.
8th Century – First English translation.
9th century – first Slavic translation.
1170 First parallel English language bible.
13th century – first Spanish translation.
1300 – First Norwegian translation.
1454 – First printed bible by a Catholic named Gutenberg.
1466 – First printed German bible (58 years before Luther)
1470 – First printed Scandinavian bible.
1471 – First printed Italian bible.
1475 – First printed Dutch bible.
1478 – First printed Spanish bible.
1466 – First printed French bible.
1516 – First printed Greek bible.
1548 – First Chinese translation.
1561 – First complete Polish bible.
1579 – First Mexican version.
But, for the most part, Latin was used because it was the universal language of the educated and literate. If the Church produced bibles that were to be read by the masses (that could read) the obvious language would be Latin.
Let’s address the sins of the members of the Church. Oh yeah, sins indeed. There is no doubt that many many members of the Church were sinners, including many popes, and yes, including me. Nobody argues that. There is a difference between the members of the Church and the Church’s teaching. The Church was given to us as a hospital for sinners, not as a museum for saints.
As for papal succession, why is it sola scriptura does not have to be spelled out in the bible but papal succession does? How about the trinity? That word never appears in the bible. But all protestants that believe in the trinity are following Catholic tradition. A lot of what you believe is not spelled out in the bible but was actually formed from Catholic tradition. A tradition formed and developed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You say that the Church has put mankind at the mercy of men and not God. More accurately put, it would be at the mercy and direction of men as directed and lead by God and the Holy Spirit as Mathew 16 so clearly puts it. “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” sounds a lot like God giving men the power to direct.
Bob I just reread some of the points you raised in your response to me and again see that you are ‘drawing a long bow’ to twist scripture to be Catholic compliant.
Re. 1 Timothy 3:15, it does say ‘….the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.’ But if you look carefully, the clause, ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ is explained in verse 16 and it is ‘the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory’. In other words the church has the responsibility for maintaining knowledge of God, through Jesus, and ensuring that it remains grounded on Him. Not some guy living in Rome.
It may be, in the early days but definitely not from the time of Peter, that the Catholic church was entrusted with maintaining and spreading the Good News but over time, it lost its’ way and began to stink. Therefore, God raised up other people and groups who would faithfully represent Him and His word. Even today, many Protestant churches have become as corrupt as the Catholic, and their candles have been replaced. The trouble with them, however, is like the Catholic church, they refuse to lay down and instead become rallying places for heresy, such as the Uniting Church and others which adopt political correctness instead of the Word of God.
If you read on into Chapter 4 of 1 Timothy, it talks about false teachers, ‘those who will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving… (sounds like Friday fish to me)… Sounds like Tetzel and his Indulgences etc…
Getting back to the church: it is supposed to safeguard the Word of God and the revelation of Christ, which is our pillar and ground. Not the false teaching which has emanated from various members of the Church of Rome.
Your comments re. the Trinity and the authority of Rome cannot be put on the same level. Good exegesis will give a strong case for the Trinity but there is absolutely no scriptural case to be made for Papal succession and the claims of R.C.. Like many Catholic apologists you are selective in your Bible references but where there is no evidence you claim Papal authority and Catholic tradition over the Word of God. Can’t have it both ways my good chap.
Incidentally, 1 Peter 2:5, talking of believers says, ‘You then as lively stones are built up into a spiritual house (church) a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Christ Jesus.’ You see Bob, the church is the people but is also a physical building where the spiritual bricks meet. These same members are the priesthood, not some guy in a long robe swinging incense (that is Old Testament). There is much the Catholic church does not understand or practice. Adieu.
I’m “drawing a long bow”? And then you have to explain “in other words” what the plain, straight forward truth of the bible clearly states by jumping to unrelated references? Nice. The ONLY Church that was around during the time of Christ and the apostles is the Catholic Church and the gates of hell has not prevailed against it…just as promised.
You have furnished absolutely no proof for that Bob. Pity you side stepped my references to I Timothy 4…… etc..
1 Tim 4 – Are you equating false asceticism with sacrificing for God by abstaining from meat on Fridays during lent? Wow. Even for you that is a stretch. If you really want to find a fulfillment of that verse in relatively recent times, at least in terms of turning away from the faith, then I see Protestantism as a much better fit.
Bob I can see it is relatively pointless trying to have a discussion with you. Your retorts are now becoming personal. If you want to side with those who deny the veracity of the Word of God, in preference for the traditions of man, then so be it. The seduction of the spirits of Rome and the errors upon which much of Catholic church teaching is predicated ie. their traditions, has you intoxicated. There are many questions I put to you for consideration, based on the Word of God but you either ignore or make trite comment. Good luck.
You are correct. I do “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”. 2 Thes 2:15. To not do so would be to “deny the veracity of the Word of God”.
“It should also be noted that the first-century Christians–including Jesus and the apostles–effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books.”
It should also be noted that neither Jesus not the apostles ever quoted the deuterocanonical books, but only those included in the Protestant canon. Just because they’re in the Septuagint doesn’t make them the inspired Word of God.
Religion – always has and will be the cause of the world’s conflicts. Man should not need the crutch of religion to delude himself about some eternal existance. Life is short and final…….make the most of it.
Isn’t this the wrong title? After reading this it occured to me that you spent more time, trying to prove the protestants wrong. Instead of proving why the catholic church didn’t add anything to the Bible. Also there are parts about the catholic church that are not in this text but clearly aren’t taken from the 66 books the protestants use. Can anybody explain this to me?
Asking one to prove that the Catholic Church didn’t do something, i.e. did not add books, is asking to prove a negative. What this article did was to demonstrate that the books that the Catholics and all of Chritiandom used as canonical, including Jesus and the apostles, right up until the reformation, are the same 73 books that the Catholic Church uses today and always has. If someone is to answer the question, then the burden falls on proving that the protestants did something, namely removed books. That, or the burden falls on protestants to prove another positive, that the Catholic Church did add books. This article was a defense to the latter. The author posited a typical protestant accusation, hence the title of this article, and then gave the defense. Either approach will give the same result, that the books were always there and the protestants removed them. I think the article showed this quite well.
I find it interesting that as I read this all I can think is about how the enemy has tried and succeeded for all these years and continues to pull Christians apart, dividing them by doctrine. No wonder we have a hard time bringing in the harvest in North America. All they can see is that we argue amongst ourselves what’s right and what’s wrong, why what you believe is unscriptutal etc etc. Come on!! Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but thru Him. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. So believing in what Christ did on the cross, dying and 3 days layer rose feom the dead is essentialy the goapel. Period. Everything else is a distraction and a tool the enemy has learned works quite well in bringing division. Who CARES about all this other stuff, thete is only one way to heaven and don’t you dare tell me your bible says something different! If you are more concerned with being right then your hearts need to be checked with the spirit of God. He cares about the harvest not our squabbles about which well of doctrine you choose to drink from. We can not bring ppl to the saving knowledge of Christ if we are so busy fighting with one another to prove who has it right.
Cariokem you have expressed an opinion (your view) and you are convinced you are right. Why are you more right than anyone else? What you fail to see (maybe through lack of education on this issue) is that if we are not taught Biblically then we won’t understand salvation or anything else. The Catholic church, historically, did not teach that man is saved through grace and faith in Jesus. It taught a sacramental salvation, that is, as we participate in the actual body and blood of Jesus, via communion, that we are in the process of being saved. Their doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of communion are the literal body and blood of Christ. Also, to receive this sacrament one had to be a Catholic. So, therefore, in their view, only Catholics could be saved. Do you believe this is correct?
Men such as Wycliffe, Huss and Luther, had revelation of the true way to salvation based on Biblical teaching and were persecuted and even murdered for it.
You can glibly say, ‘Hey, what’s all the fuss about?’ and not realise the facts and events and the innocent blood spilt because some men over time spoke out against error in the R.C. Church.
God speaks to us clearly in scripture about being accurate teachers and warns us with the threat of damnation, about the perils of leading others astray.
It is not beneficial to argue and divide over doctrine. But unless we all uphold the Word of God over our doctrines and traditions, then unfortunately, things will never change until Jesus comes again.
Well said Caiokem and also Alansjones. It is not beneficial to argue and divide over doctrine. Let us up hold the word of God. God bless all and revealing is His work.
This is double speak and illogical! How can you uphold the word of God if you can’t even recognize it?
That is double speak and illogical! How can you uphold God’s Word if you can’t even recognize it? Which version, twisted or otherwise, are you going to buy into?
David please read about what the very early pope Innocent says about Candles. and many others thereafter. The syro malabar and the malankar are the ones from kerala. There is a very big congrgation in goa and other parts of India. ( all within the single digit % of population of India.) To all of you lovely people I would like to ask one thing When I die will God ask me whether I am a Catholic or Roman catholic, or a protestant,syro malankar or methodist or baptist? All I know is that the Bible tells only one thing that there is no trial,to argue these details only Judgement saying “well done my faithful and good servant when i was Hungry you fed me—-.etc.Now enter in to the heaven. All these what we are discussing here are man made. including the catechism, or confirmation or any other ritual.
I am a protestant christian. It is a sad history that some of the old testament books have been hidden in the Bible. Some of our pastors they do encourage us to read the Aphocipa. I like the Books. Recently when they found the dead sea scrolls they found some evidence that books were also in Aramic.Since the major controversy of these books being written in greek ( Like many other Books) is now changed. It will be good to undo the changes and add the books back. It is good to refer to the Papal actions of 3 or the 4th centuries, But the later years after 1100 AD definitely are not in the good taste. (However there was a reformation with in the Roman Catholic church after Martin Luther’s reformation.) It was Pope Innocent who declared that Candles are not objects of worship and can be used only for illuminating. However we find that in the Roman catholic churches ( In India) Candles are an object and part of worship. The christianity is referred to as candle community. There are many other things like statues, and other rituals which make the roman catholic church a Idol worship community. I have lots of Roman catholic friends. This is the first place I am finding some roman catholics speak so much about religion. I like this. We are only(All Christian denomintions put together) 2% of population in India. It is sad that such differences are there and that is definitely a very big stumbling block for Evangelization.
godfrey aiyadurai the Catholic Church in India consists of two rites – the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankar – they are not Latin (or Roman) rite.
It seems that you are confused about the use of candles and their worship. I would recommend that you read up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you really want to know and not speculate.
That’s right, all you need is someone to “interpret” the scripture correctly for you. No thinking neccessary.
I was raised in a southern baptist. When I married I agreed to the Catholic religion. We have raised our children in the Catholic religion. Been married over 40 yrs. I have NEVER heard in the Catholic Church that you get to heaven by your good works,but only by the grace of God and our belief in Jesus Christ . I only see few minor difference in the Protestant and Catholic religions.
Sandy McCorkel thank you for your insight
Yes, from another Roman Catholic convert, in 1968 when I was 23! This is such an interesting discourse.
Also the 29th Chapter of Acts should be there. It also provides for Amen that is obviously missing in 28th Chapter. Paul always concluded with Amen!
D.J.the Book of Acts was written by Dr. Luke and not Paul. Check the first chapter.
Ephesians 2:7-9 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Catholics don’t believe in this. They believe you have to work your way to heaven. The Bible says your works are as filthy rags.
Galatians 3:5-7 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.…
You are absolutely wrong. Catholics DO NOT believe you can work your way into heaven. Whoever told you this was lying or ignorant of the facts. Catholics believe good works and faith go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other. The verse you quoted from Ephesians is talking about works of the law, Mosaic law, not good works. While you’re throwing out scripture, take a look at the only place in the entire Bible that the phrase “faith alone” appears, James 2:24 “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Catholics believe you MUST have faith and that through this faith good works flow.
John, you can’t possibly understand Cathlic theology at all. The statement you atribute to us is more closely attributed to no completed Old Testament Jewdism .., Through Jesus all the law is fulfilled. By Faith through Grace we are saved!
Nay Jeff, Just the opposite. By grace through faith we are saved! Ephesians 2:8.
Not so Jeffrey, as it is just the opposite; By Grace through Faith we are saved. Ephesians 2:8
If a person reads the bible and knows what it says you could not want to be a catholic
Larry you are completely right. They have twisted many things in the bible !!!!!
What a horrible thing to say about the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. To know the Bible and to know history is to cease to be protestant.
Only after the 15th century the Protestant churches came into being. The Roman catholic church came into being by the 11th century. It was all orthodox church before that.
Then why is it that the Church that Jesus founded is referred to, in writing, as the “Catholic Church” as early as 110 AD? Likely referred to as Catholic well before that, this is just the earliest in writing. No instances of an “orthodox” church for millennia.
Catholic means universal. Roman catholic is different.
Catholic is Catholic. Period. There is no church existing today that existed in the days of Jesus and is still in communion with the chair of Peter other than the Catholic Church. Jesus said that His Church would last forever. The Church St. Ignatius referred to in 110AD as the Catholic Church is the same church you call the Roman Catholic Church. Founded by Jesus, Peter appointed as leader followed by Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. An unbroken line of popes from 33AD to today. History, like facts, is a stubborn thing.
The Nicene Creed which is followed in the ROMAN CATHOLIC church is professed by others. Catholic means universal.Catholic is Catholic. There is no question about it. And Jesus Christ is Jesus christ. It is good to learn about the orthodox church. Being chauvenistic blinds the faith. Bob get to Christ, and let us take christ to the millions who do not know about Christ. God Bless.
Bob, I’m sure you mean well but based on fact, not R.C. misinformation Peter was not a pope (as in R.C. tradition). He was a family man (with a wife etc.). There are definitely references in the N’T’ to his mother-in-law. (Please do the research impartially).
The Catholic church did maintain the Christian tradition (to some degree) over the centuries but because of the corruption and ambition of many of its’ leaders (Popes) what it developed into lost the purity of scripture and became a political structure, ruling over kings and nations through fear and fallacy.
Martin Luther was a Catholic theologian of repute but he could not deny the plain teaching of scripture in the face of R.C. lies. Hence the Reformation and the birth of Protestantism in the 16th century.
The Crusades, the sale of Indulgences, the corruption of the Borgias and many other things, signed the death knell of the R.C. Church in the minds and lives of true Christians.
Why hang onto the carcass of this corrupt institution? Move with the Holy Spirit as He breathes fresh life into those who will walk with Him and who rely on His Word as the final arbiter between man and God.
Why can’t Peter be married and be pope? Your argument makes no sense. Today there are Roman Catholic priests that are married. If you don’t know this, you are the one who needs to do some research. At any point the Church could change it’s stand on priests and marriage but has good reasons not to. I don’t base my comments on Catholic misinformation. I base it on the bible. To research and know history is to cease to be protestant. That’s exactly what I used to be and on my own, through bible study saw what was in plain sight. I became Catholic three years ago last Easter. Have there been bad popes? You betcha, some really horrible ones. The Church is full of sinners. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Luther should have truly tried to reform the Church but he didn’t. he split away and started his own false church and edited the bible to suit his needs. Just like the 30,000 – 40,000 protestants that followed Luther’s example and started their own churches. There is only one Church, according to the bible. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it (as Luther thought it had), according to the bible. The keys to heaven were given to Peter, according to the bible. Jesus built His Church on Peter, according to the bible. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power to forgive sins, according to the bible. I studied the bible, the early Church, the Doctors of the Church and I stand by my comments.
Bob I have known and worked with many beautiful Catholic people over the years and have a heart for them. However, I believe the R.C. Church itself to be in error on many fronts. (Not saying that all Protestant churches are without their faults either)
Regarding Luther ‘breaking away’ from the R.C. Church: that was not his intention. He challenged the church to debate his 95 thesis but instead they sought to kill him as was their habit for any who disagreed with them. Had it not been for the German princes who protected him, Luther would have been murdered at the stake like his predecessors.
It is not good enough to say that the church is led by sinners and not saints. The Pope claims infallibility and that he is the successor of Peter. He is in fact ‘worshiped’ as such by Catholics around the world. Do you think Christians would admire Peter if he had been a whore monger or serial fornicator as were some of your past leaders? Do you think we would admire and follow his teaching had he had people murdered who disagreed with him? The answer is obvious. If you haven’t done so, please read ‘Foxes Book of Martyrs’.
Bob, the Catholic church is immersed in the blood of innocent people. It is riddled with the mistresses and bastards of its’ popes and cardinals. Please don’t tell me that it is the shining light of truth and integrity it purports to be. Even in recent decades its’ treatment of innocent children at the hands of pedophile priests and brothers has shocked and dismayed the world. It is because of this behaviour that people in their millions have turned their backs, not only against the R.C. church but sadly against the tenets of true Christianity. The sins of this church have given birth inadvertently to the rise of liberalism and everything vile. People mock and deride because of the failure of the Catholic church my friend.
Well I see the problem now. Foxes book of martyrs is a dishonest bunch of anti-catholic propaganda that has been completely discredited. Foxe was criticized in his own day for it and is not taken seriously by any real ecclesiastical historian today, only anti-catholic propagandists. It’s ONLY value is today is the same as it was centuries ago, to dishonestly discredit the Catholic Church so as to justify splitting from Jesus’ Church. How else are you going to get people to willingly walk away from Christ? Now, did the church need reforming, oh yes. And it has come a long way since the days Luther. Dividing the Church was not the answer. And you would see that if you seriously took an honest look at what the Church is today and where it is heading. The Catholic Church is the biggest charitable organization in the world. There is no company, individual or government that provides more shelter, food, healthcare and education to those in need than the Catholic Church.
The Church tried to kill Luther? I thought it was the other way around! The Church never tried to kill Luther. You’ve watched the Da Vinci Code a few too many times. It was an Imperial edict, not the Church. The Emperor was Catholic, but Luther was persecuted as an enemy of the State. The Edict of Worms, under the Emperor, proclaimed him to be a criminal and that killing him would not incur penalty. Basically Luther was being prosecuted as a heretic and an enemy of the state. It’s a hard cold fact but it was a rougher time back then and people were prosecuted and sometimes executed for stuff we find pretty mundane today. This was not isolated to the Church, but every government and kingdom and church back then was like that. You can’t judge the Church, protestant or Catholic, for what happened back then using standards of today. Today a death row inmate gets appeal after appeal while sitting in an air conditioned cell with cable TV. Back then, not so much. You sat in a dark dank cell chained to the wall and once judgment was swiftly passed, you were killed the next day if not immediately. It was the times and the times they were a’ changing.
I also don’t think you understand papal infallibility. It does not mean the pope cannot make mistakes or cannot sin. It only means that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, as the bible says, in questions of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra from the chair of Peter. If any Catholics are worshipping the pope, then they are in direct violation of the teaching of the Church. The Church is VERY clear that God and God alone is to be worshipped. Not the pope, not Mary, not statues, nothing.
No protestant should be attacking the Catholic Church for anything from executions centuries ago to pedophilia lest they be judged themselves. The protestant churches have just as big a problem with both. The early protestant church’s hands are dripping in the blood of Catholic martyrs. It happened in both Catholic and protestant churches and to argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant or just plain dishonest.
The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for and is doing a fair job of trying to do that. It has come a long way and is heading in the right direction. I am a member of the Catholic Church of today and tomorrow, not the middle ages. The past is past and as long as the Church is moving in a positive direction that is, well, positive.
Bob it is interesting how you justify your position by dismissing corroborated evidence from Foxes Book of Martyrs as mere anti Catholic propaganda.
How do you justify the Spanish Inquisition?
It is true that there was some payback from Protestants but at the time the R.C. had cruelty perfected to an art form.
Out of interest how in the Catholic tradition/teaching does one become a Christian? Do you.believe in transubstantiation? (People who didn’t were murdered because of it.)
Why hasn’t Pope Francis been stridently denouncing the current killing of Christians in Muslim countries?
This Pope believes in unifying world religions. What is your stance on that?
Best wishes, Alan
alansjones1@gmail.com a lot of the claims (such as the Crusades, inquistion, etc) you make against the Catholic Church have been based on popular myth which has since been discredited,
However Church members are not impeccable – from Abram, through Jacob, the apostles we have abundant evidence of human failings and sinfulness. It is these people that God uses to His own purposes. The message of the Catholic Church, the Gospel is the light.
Luther was an eminent theologian, but even those err. The protestant rebellion and subsequent reformation was not about the truth, but about national independence of an objective authority. That there are over 40,000 protestant denominations each with their own “truth” interpretation, is evidence of the protestant failings.
I would recommend that you do some research. The BBC (no friend of the Church) produced a TV programme debunking some of the myths. You may also read more eg http://www.amazon.com/The-Unintended-Reformation-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637
Lots of questions Alan. Let’s start with the inquisitions. Completely blown out of proportion by anti-Catholic protestants. The Spanish inquisition was just that Spanish. It was a secular inquisition. Protestants that jump to the inquisition should relies they are living in glass houses and should be careful with those stones. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for “heresy” (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant.
I do believe in transubstantiation. It’s biblical. Read John 6 and tell me where we are not to eat his body and drink His blood. This is not symbolism. If it were, and almost all of His followers left Him, why would He not clarify? Why would He let all those people leave Him and go off to certain damnation? If you can’t believe that Jesus is capable of making the bread and wine become His body and blood then how are you doing with that whole died on the cross and rose in three days thing?
You need to watch the news. Everyday there are stories of the pope speaking out against Christians being persecuted.
The pope and every pope before him has had the same stance on unifying all religions. Every religion that has left the true Church and those that never were a part should come back home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded.
Hi Bob. Most of your answers are at variance with my understanding and reading. I agree that there were many contradictions in Luther’s stance on various issues but his revelation on faith and grace cut right across the Catholic dogma of ‘works’. This was the spark of the Reformation. Although an evangelical on many levels, I think that Calvin’s teachings contained some error as well.
Claims made by Catholicism re. Papal descent from Peter, the Virgin Mary being the Queen of Heaven, the inerrantcy of the Pope on doctrinal matters, the elevation of people to their definition of sainthood, transubstantiation, confession to a man and many other matters, I find are without basis in Scripture. As a matter of fact, the priestly office is an anacronym, dating back to Old Testament times as the priesthood spoken of in the N.T. is that of all believers. The ministry in Ephesians 4 is that of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.
The fact that they also elevate the teachings of the church fathers to be of equal value to, or even superior to the Word of God are in my view, diabolical. They have reduced the Bible to a book of parables rather than the literal Word of God.
Having taught in the Catholic secondary system for more than twenty years, I have noted that they turn out a large percentage of atheists and at best agnostics, by the time students have graduated.
Bob, you did not answer my question: ‘How does a person become a Christian in the Catholic context?’
Blessings….
I know this is a late comment, but I think this is important for folks to know.
The answer to who was in charge, (had final say), was James, not Peter. We see this in Acts 15. There was a great dispute, and all came to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples. Peter shared some back ground, Verse’s 7-11, yet after that James took over and gave the “sentence” the, “final say” in verse 13. No, James here is their leader, not Peter.
Word ‘ Catholic ‘ not in the Bible.
Neither is the word Bible. What’s your point?
Incorrect – the term Ekklesia Katilikos (Catholic Church) was first used by the bishop of Antioch in 107AD.
The schism occurred around the 10th century due to the nationalistism of some of the eastern churches. The Greek, Maronite, Syriac rites remain part of the Catholic Church
hahahhaha the term catholic was there before orthodox. roman catholic never been said until 17th century. the roman catholic was given by anglican people who distinguish their catholic to catholic of the pope in rome. anglican identified themselves as catholics too.
catholic existed before orthodox. the term roman catholic was given by anglican people, identified catholics who under papacy in rome. anglican church claim their church as catholics too.
catholic word was given before the term of orthodox church recognized. roman catholic was the term given by anglicans who identified themselves as catholics too, distinguish them with the catholics under the papacy in rome.
Ann Pierre-Mitchell. The King James Bible was made after the death of Henry VIII so that everyone could understand it, not just those educated in Latin. It was not translated to allow divorce. Whoever told you that is just repeating disinformation . The Church of England did not change theology, it just denied the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Kept the same sacraments and the Nicene Creed and you cannot get divorced in the Anglican church, but you may get an annulment and then remarry.
Michael the first English Bible was the Douay-Rheims Bible. Erasmus, a Catholic was one those who were responsible for the KJV.
The Church of England did succumb to the protestant reformation and changed theology. However they seem to have a group that has attempted to return to Catholic liturgy.
The newly established Ordinariates will retain much of the good of the English tradition and restore valid sacraments and holy orders.
David Blyth, the Douay-Rheims bible was not printed until 1682, yet the Geneva Bible was printed in 1560. The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years. So, no King James had little effect on the so called “King James Bible”, as the KJV was basicly the Geneva Bible, without the margin notes.of the great (and later martyred for his work),Tyndale.
I am not a theologian but from my knowledge, the KJV was complied to institute the freedom to divorce and remarry by King Henry 8- what do you call that in the adding and taking away from the original compilation of the Bible 400 A.D.
King James (KJV) arrived on the scene many years after King Henry VIII had departed. King Henry only had the authorised Catholic edition.
Henry’s claim for annulment, in the first instance, was on the grounds that Catherine of Aragon had been his brothers’ wife and that the union was not blessed as she was not able to give him a male heir. The Pope agreed to the annulment.
The papacy at this time was not entirely spiritual. The Borgias themselves were not long off the scene.
The pope most certainly did not agree to the annulment. Quite the opposite. The pope refused annulment so Henry had Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury pronounce it annulled and this led to the break from the Roman Catholic Church and the creation of the Church of England.
King Henry died in the middle of the 16th Century but the KJV was not created until the 17th Century.
King Henry VII divorced (more properly had his marriage annulled) Catherine on May 23, 1533. Henry died in 1547. The KJV was written from 1604 – 1611, a full 78 years after his annulment and 64 years after his death. There is no connection between the two.
The Catholic Church did add books to the Bible. Around the 4th century the Church added 27 books to the Bible…it’s known as the New Testament.
Very intense research. I strongly support last paragraph.
“One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scripturaor “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
“
I would like to add that there is five pilars of which the reformed believe stands on.
Which are as follows:
Sola fide. Which means roughly translated: only through faith
Sola gratia: only through grace
Sola scriptura: only the scripture
Solus Christus: only through christ
Soli Deo Gloria: all glory to God.
The Protestant Church rejected those books to suit their needs.
I remember reading, years ago, that the primary reason for the inclusion/exclusion was based on Jewish canon.
The Hebrew Jewish Canon did not include the extra 7 books,
The Greek Jewish Canon did include the deuterocanonical books.
I used to own a copy of the Jewish Bible, and these 7 books were not included. It is also interesting that the books in the Jewish Bible are counted differently than in the Catholic Bible.
John
The Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books.
In 90 AD the Jews changed their canon from the Septuagint.
That is why the Jewish Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonical books.
The protestants used the full Christian canon in the first edition of the KJV.
The Puritans influenced the printing of the second edition of the KJV.
None of this is backed up by the scriptures none of it from Genesis all the way to Revelations everything that you say show me a scripture from the beginning to the end because it’s the Bible we are supposed to follow and nothing else I know of a religion that goes by strictly the Bible and nothing else and they are the biggest religion on Earth today there are over five thousand people that are getting baptized daily if you really want to know what the bible really teaches you need to go to jw.org and it will help you see the truth about your questions any question you might have you are directed straight to your Bible whether it’s Catholic, Protestant , Baptist, Mormons everyone else needs to go directly to the Bible nowhere else the religion that I’m talking about doesn’t have a leader but Jesus Christ and they don’t call anybody father but Jehovah God and he has a son Jesus Christ as their King yes they do have books but they are in Topix like for example there’s a book called what does the bible really teach and it takes you into topics like for example why has God allow so much suffering chapter 11 it takes you into a bunch of scriptures to tell you why they don’t give you their own opinion there’s another topic by the name of what is the true religion that takes you into your Bible and explains to you how the True Religion should work according to scriptures and they give you dozens and dozens and dozens of scriptures there’s another one that’s called how to have a happy family life again it takes you to a bunch of scriptures it’s all about scripture scripture scripture nothing else no one else’s opinion nothing but scripture please check it out they’re not there to teach you to change your religion there is there to teach you the truth and whatever you do with the information it’s totally up to you it’s all free they don’t sell their Bibles they don’t sell their books they are not selling magazines nothing is sold please try it don’t ask questions to someone that doesn’t teach you from the Bible it’s only hearsay you need to go to your manual Bible everything that is made has a manual so it can work right we have the Bible as our manual so we can do things the right way what does 2nd Timothy 3: 16,,17 say all scripture is inspired for reproving for setting things straight thank you so much and have a wonderful day I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and very proud of it thank you again
You say the Bible is all we are supposed to follow and nothing else. Well…that’s not in the Bible. If you are following the Bible alone, then you are following a tradition of men. And before you even go there, 2 Tim 3:16 says “all scripture” not “only scripture”.
Hi Consuelo. I respect your passion for your religion but there are many aspects of J W which are based on erroneous doctrines. Your version of the Bible for example, even denies the Divinity of Christ, which is essential for a true understanding of the redemptive work of the cross. You also have no understanding of the Trinity and thereby the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
In essence the J W hope of salvation is works based and has no concept of grace and faith, which is intrinsic in Christian salvation.
The J W Bible is not faithful to ancient manuscripts but has been doctored to accomodate the tenets of your founder.
There is a warning about altering scripture at the end of Revelation (in the original) which J. W.’s would be well advised to heed.
There are many/most Christians who adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture and we are known as Fundamentalists. This view is embraced by Evangelicals and Charasmatics worldwide, regardless of denomination.
Best wishes
Funny, the word Jehova doesn’t appear anywhere in the original Scriptures; it was made up from a combination of names the Jews called God! One was a high holy name that was never spoken and the other one meant Lord!
Consuelo, jw.org is neither scriptural nor biblical. It is an organization created by a man and administered by a board of men who are neither prophets nor biblical scholars. They claim to receive messages from their fictious Jehovah which are rules and regs they make up themselves and pass along to the rest of your organization as if Jehovah himself stated. And when these messages are passed down, you as a member must simply repeat what has been told to you without question nor doubt of its reality. And if you raise a question, then the potential of being shunned becomes quite real. As a Member of the universal church of which the word Catholic comes from, I am allowed to ask questions and calm doubts without reprisal. How else do we learn the truth if not by asking for clarity from those more scripturally learned than we? And I mean the Bible, not some book that has been doctored such as the jw book has been to suit the board and ultimately the group’s members. I will pray for you that the Holy Spirit guides your heart to be one with the true God.
The Council of Nicea also purged many of the gospels, leaving the early church (and later, the Protestants), with the 4 gospels known today. There were at least a dozen gospels purged then. They (& other sacred texts–including excerpts from the Dead Sea Scrolls–can be found in “The Other Bible”, William Barnstone, ed. ISBN # 978-0-7394-8434-0. Printed in the USA by Harper San Francisco, a division of Harper-Collins Publishers.
These have no credibility as authoritive scripture as inspired by God. If so please tell me how. These books were written after the close of the OT cannon and after prophetic activity stopped. Please show me how im wrong if so. Thank you. God bless.
After the emerge and spread of Christianity, the Jews canonize their scripture. And they decided that those should be written in Hebrew language, and so the Greek language scripture were excluded.
How can I prove to you that those scriptires are autoritative?
Just read at the story of Macabe. The Story of Judas Macabe recorded the origin of the Hanukkah feast, which is the rededication of the Holy Temple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah.
The Jews still commemorating the event and held the festive as holiday.
The only reason the Jews excluded Books of Maccabe is because they were written only in Greek.
Why they rejected non Hebrew books? Because all books of NT were written in Greek also.
But before the Jews canonized their scriptures, they have the Septuagint, which has been translated into Koine Greek at 3 BCE.
And that include the now deuterocanonica books. Here, read by yourself: wiki/Septuagint.
Christian authority to canonize her scriptures doesn’t come from Jewish authority, but from Christ and Holy Spirit of God.
This from the link I gave you above:
After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be called “Apocrypha” (originally meaning “hidden” but became synonymous with “of questionable authenticity”), with some arguing against them being classed as Scripture.[32][33][34][full citation needed] The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version.[35]
If the book of Macabees are not authoritative, why the Jews commemorating the Macabean revolt as a holiday?
What’s the difference from the feast of Purim which was written in book of Ester?
Jews still celebrate Hannukah until this day. We still reject the books of maccabees as scripture. Not becuase they were in Greek, but because they came after the time of the prophets