Why Does the RCC have extra Books In their canon?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by DaChaser1, Feb 21, 2012.

  1. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    As neither jesus nor the jews know any other than Protestant OT books, and early church ONLY know and confirmed the protestant NT books?
     
  2. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0

    Because they wanted to use smart bombs.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? It's a Greek translation of the Hebrew O.T. and it predates Christianity. In fact, many N.T. quotes of the O.T. are from the Septuagint and that is why they don't exactly coincide when we compare them in the English Bible. The Septuagint contained those extra books.
     
  4. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heard of it, have used it to study, But it was NOT included as being part of deciding canon of scriptures!
     
  5. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Really? That will come as quite a surprise to Jerome, who translated it into the Latin Vulgate, which in turn formed the basic framework for the 1611 Authorized Version.
     
  6. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think people would be surprised if they really knew the history of the formation and acceptance of the canon. I have read that no book which was widely rejected made it into the canon. True perhaps, but there were some which were widely accepted which were excluded. I'll give an example when -- not if -- I am challenged. :)
     
  7. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    No they didn't. The Septuagint was written 250 B.C. The Apocryphal books were written long after that, some of them even after Christ was born. None of them were written before 250 B.C., the date of the writing of the Septuagint. Thus your information is false. The original Septuagint never had any of the Apocryphal book in it, though later copies written well after the birth of Christ and the time of the Apostles may have.
    But even that is not for sure.

    My copy of the Septuagint does not have the Apocrypha in it. Why should I trust your information?
     
  8. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    No the original Septuagint didn't have the deuterocanonical books. That's why they are called "deutero" meaning second, or coming after. However, most people agree that they had been written by the First Century. There are no direct quotes from them in the N.T. but there are several places where the similarity is so great that we know the N.T. writer must have had them in mind. For example:

    Matthew 6:7 is from Sirach 7:14.

    Romans 9:21 is from Wisdom 15:7.

    Romans 11:34 is from Wisdom 9:13.

    2 Corinthians 9:7 is from Sirach 35:9-11.

    Hebrews 11:35 is from 1 Maccabees 7:7-9.

    In addition, Clement in the late First Century expressly referred to Judith and Wisdom in his writings.

    You must have ordered the Protestant version. :laugh:
    Because it's right, of course. :laugh:
     
  9. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    think the point is that canon of the OT blooks was fixed by the Jews before time of Christ, same books we have in protestant bibles!

    NT books agreed uon as inspired same as our bible, not RCC ones!
     
  10. WestminsterMan

    WestminsterMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of the deuteros are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hmmm....

    Do you accept the NT cannon? Because if you do, then you must necessarily accept the authority of those councils that set the NT cannon - the RCC. So, to take this to its logical conclusion; if you accept the NT cannon as set forth by the councils of the Catholic Church, then you must (at least tactitly) accept that OT cannon used by that same Church.

    WM
     
  11. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their gospel is not scripitual to begin with.

    Why would you expect them to be biblical now?

    John
     
    #11 seekingthetruth, Feb 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2012
  12. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Technically and historically, there was no "Roman Catholic Church" as it is today until Constantine united the Roman state and paganism with the "church".

    The "setting" of the canon was a consensual process that took place over many years; it was not something that was decided by a hierarchy.
     
  13. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    the NT canon was already accepted and recognised hundreds of years, as the early church fathers and other authorities had already spread around and accepted what was taken to have been inspired by god to the NT believers!

    So the Council just gave "official" recognition to what were already commonly held to be the inspired books fro years before that time!

    RCC did NOT create the canon, merely assented and agreed to what was already known among local churches!
     
  14. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You probably have some similarities, but not direct quotes. You sound like Moriah trying to convince me that Romans 3:9-12 was quoted from Ecclesiastes. It won't work. Similarity does not even mean they referred to it.
     
  15. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    You're entitled to your opinion. Let the reader of these and other passages decide what is "ripped off" and what is original.
     
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    They can't unless you back up your claim with evidence.
     
  17. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    the RCC casn claim to have been started/founded by jesus, Peter first pope...

    BUT

    History shows us that what we call the RCC did not start until much later, and that Apostolic Christianity NOT what the RC teaches and practices!

    if anything, early church was Baptist in teaching/practice, and in church structure!
     
  18. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Sure they can. All the evidence you need, and all there is, is to compare the passages. For example, compare:
    with
    Anyone who wants to dismiss the similarities as coincidental may do so but hardly anyone would dismiss them unless they were trying to prove that 2 Maccabees had not been written by the time Hebrews was written. And by the way, I cited 1 Maccabees 7 earlier and it should have been 2 Maccabees 7. Sorry about the error.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Maccabees, probably the most useful of the apocryphal books, were historical in nature. They give history, not always accurate, but at least it is some history. There is no quote here. Historical references are about as common as taking half a dozen different history books, looking at the same event in each of them, and concluding that each of them wrote from one source. That is what you are saying. What an absurd conclusion.
     
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 1611 KJV contained them >G>
     

Share This Page

Loading...