Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the Canon is "closed."

[DHK]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:

Did you not even bother to read the quotes I gave you.

The Sanhedrin of Jamnia set up artificial criteria to combat christianity to defend them and say they established these criteria because they were experts reaches new levels of ridiculousness. Do you also defend the Sanhedrins persecution of Jesus.

If they are right in their criteria for scripture the christian new testament is completely false. Is it a God given rule that all scripture must be written in Hebrew, if you believe so throw out your Bible.

Yes, the criteria for the Old Testament is correct, as verified by Jamnia, pointed out and posted by none other than yourself.
Remeber this was the criteria set for the Old Testament, not for the New Testament. They were Jews. The Messiah had not yet come. The year was 400 B.C. Put your thinking cap on here. Hebrew was their national language. There is no reason to bring Christ or the crucifixion of Him, 400 years before the event ever happened.
The Jews had their canon by 400 B.C. obviously without the Apocrypha.
DHK

 

[Born Again Catholic]

DHK

Lets review in order for your conspiracy theory to work that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible.

The Catholic Church would of had to convince a group of 1st century Jews from Ethiopia and Alexandria to adopt a OT canon identical to the Catholic OT and keep it for 2,000 years. An amazing feat considering your claims that the Catholic Church did not make the disputed books canonical until the 16th century.

The Catholic Church would of had to convince the Orthodox Church to make the same books canonical in the 16th century and to go along with your claim of Catholic revisionism. Another amazing feat considering that these two churches broke apart in the year 1052 ad and did not have good relations.

In addition somehow Catholics convinced the authors the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica to distort the history of their faith and to go along with what I have told you about the Council of Jamnia and the determination of the Hebrew Canon.

Wow! That an amazing conspiracy rheory it makes Roswell look tame,

DHK at some point it is just easier to admit the truth than to twist the truth beyond any recognition. The truth is Protestants tampered with scripture and deleted books from the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (1585-90) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms, and inventing his own system of chapters and verses.

In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church), he declared by 'the fullness of Apostolical power' that this new 'translation' of the Bible
must be 'received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.' Anyone who disobeyed was to be excommunicated.

Of course, when the clergy saw the pope's astonishing handiwork, which instantly had made obsolete the Council of Trent's approved Latin Bible and all textbooks based upon it, they were horrified. Fortunately, Sixtus died a few months later and a cover-up was devised by Bellarmine.

Oh well...

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Cardinal Cajetan, one of Martin Luther's opponents during the Reformation, explained in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, as cited in William Webster's The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth, 1995):

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
DHK

Lets review in order for your conspiracy theory to work that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible.

You don't get it do you?
I don't have a conspiracy theory. You do; I believe the Bible.
I don't have to revise history to prove my position. You do; I believe the Bible.
I don't believe in a Book that had books officially added to it in the 16th century. You do; I believe the Bible (Lk.24:44).

Take your revistionist history, your consipiracy theories and do what you like with them. It will not change the truth of the Word of God.

Psalms 1:1-4 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I sat in a cave next to the Church of the Nativity were St. Jerome wrote. I was moved by the thought of the hours, days, weeks, years the man gave to translate the Scripture into the language of his people.

His recommendation as given by Bob Ryan is excellent: The apocryphal writings were NOT canonical "for confirming matters of faith". But could be included in the canon (if a publisher so desired) "for the edification of the faithful".

There are many other good writings that are not perfect or the Word of God from which we can read and glean insights and truth. We eat the chicken and spit out the bones.

 

[DHK]

New Testament writers affirm the Old Testament as God's word. In fact, three hundred and twenty times New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as God's word. One thousand times they allude to it as God's word in a clear and definite reference to some Old Testament passage. So thirteen hundred times New Testament writers affirm the Old Testament and they do it in the law, the Pentateuch. They do it in the history books. They do it in the minor prophets, the major prophets, and the holy writings, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and so forth.

In other words, they affirm every section of Old Testament scripture as being the word of God in unself-conscious ways. And then they in the New Testament go on to write what they write with that same utter absence of self-consciousness.

James was writing his own book and called it scripture. He says, "Do you think the scripture speak to no purpose" in James 4:5. He calls his own books, book James, scripture. Paul reading the law of God, the Old Testament, said the law is holy, just and good. He affirms the holiness, the perfection of God's law, the Old Testament. Jude quotes Peter as scripture. Peter quotes Paul as scripture. And John quotes himself as scripture. John just finished writing the letters to the churches, he says let the churches hear what the Spirit says. John knew he was writing what the Spirit was saying, not what he was saying. The Bible is not some high level of human genius.

This is a portion of an excellent article on the inspiration of the Bible written by John MacArthur. The entire article can be found at:
INSPIRATION

DHK

 

[7-Kids]

Originally posted by DHK:
QUOTE]This is a portion of an excellent article on the inspiration of the Bible written by John MacArthur. The entire article can be found at:
INSPIRATION

DHK

I like it

 

[frozencell]

Because to them the Word of God can be tampered with if it suits their needs.

This statement contains malice that Jesus would not have approved of by anyone. It is accusing, derogatory, and offensive. Reading things like this reaffirms my thinking that the reason more people aren't Christians is because of Christians.

 

[frozencell]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
DHK

Lets review in order for your conspiracy theory to work that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible.

You don't get it do you?
I don't have a conspiracy theory. You do; I believe the Bible.
I don't have to revise history to prove my position. You do; I believe the Bible.
I don't believe in a Book that had books officially added to it in the 16th century. You do; I believe the Bible (Lk.24:44). </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe you answered him at all. His point was the Protestants twisted history and the Bible, and all you did was deny it. And very poorly, I might add. This doesn't help anything.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
I don't believe you answered him at all. His point was the Protestants twisted history and the Bible, and all you did was deny it. And very poorly, I might add. This doesn't help anything.

There is nothing to answer. He has a conspiracist theory which he cannot prove. Some people see a demon behind every tree. But they can't prove that there is. The Muslims claim that every verse of the Bible has been altered, and the only preserved parts of the Bible are preserved in the Koran. The Muslims have just as much as a valid point as you do. It isn't valid at all.

How can a Catholic claim that 14 books were part of the original Bible when:
1. The Old Testament was completed and canonized as early as 400 B.C., and all of the Apocrypha was written between 210 B.C. and 70 A.D.
2. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew; the Apocrypha was written in Greek.
3. The books (written as part of the Old Testament) were never accepted by the Jews themselves.
4. Not even Jerome accepted these books as canonical.
5. The New Testament writers quote from virtually every book of the Old Testament, but never from any of the Apocryphal books.
6. Jesus in Luke 24:44 refers to the traditional divisions of the Hebrew Bible without the Apocrypha as Scripture. There are three divisions, and the apocrypha is not one of them.
7. The books were never officially accepted by the Catholic Church until the 16th century. So if anyone has a conspiracy theory it must be the Catholic church, not the Protestants.

Read carefully the link on inspiration that I gave on a previous post. It will give you much more information to think about.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

Originally posted by DHK:
There is nothing to answer. He has a conspiracist theory which he cannot prove. Some people see a demon behind every tree. But they can't prove that there is. The Muslims claim that every verse of the Bible has been altered, and the only preserved parts of the Bible are preserved in the Koran. The Muslims have just as much as a valid point as you do. It isn't valid at all.

How can a Catholic claim that 14 books were part of the original Bible when:
1. The Old Testament was completed and canonized as early as 400 B.C., and all of the Apocrypha was written between 210 B.C. and 70 A.D.
2. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew; the Apocrypha was written in Greek.
3. The books (written as part of the Old Testament) were never accepted by the Jews themselves.
4. Not even Jerome accepted these books as canonical.
5. The New Testament writers quote from virtually every book of the Old Testament, but never from any of the Apocryphal books.
6. Jesus in Luke 24:44 refers to the traditional divisions of the Hebrew Bible without the Apocrypha as Scripture. There are three divisions, and the apocrypha is not one of them.
7. The books were never officially accepted by the Catholic Church until the 16th century. So if anyone has a conspiracy theory it must be the Catholic church, not the Protestants.

Read carefully the link on inspiration that I gave on a previous post. It will give you much more information to think about.
DHK

First, please refer to teh link I have provided in my previous posts. But, in short, I would like to quickly and concisely rebutt two of your arguements.


1. There are somewher in the close range of a dozen OT books not quoted in the NT, so not virtually every other OT book is quoted.

Just a little of my own research. First, read 2 Peter 1:20-21. Second, read Wisdom 2:10-24.

I think it's self-explanatory, but if you don't understand or don't have access to Deuterocanonical books then reply and I will be more thorough in my post.

2. The 16th century Catholic Church EMPHASIZED the Deuterocanonical books, not established.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
First, please refer to teh link I have provided in my previous posts. But, in short, I would like to quickly and concisely rebutt two of your arguements.


1. There are somewher in the close range of a dozen OT books not quoted in the NT, so not virtually every other OT book is quoted.

Just a little of my own research. First, read 2 Peter 1:20-21. Second, read Wisdom 2:10-24.

I think it's self-explanatory, but if you don't understand or don't have access to Deuterocanonical books then reply and I will be more thorough in my post.

2. The 16th century Catholic Church EMPHASIZED the Deuterocanonical books, not established.

I did refer to the link you provided. I gave you my opinion.
I also read the references above. Wisdom 2 speaks of the outlook of a man who questions life hereafter. So what?
2Peter 1:20,21 destroys your case, rather than helping it:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The Bible is of no private interpretation. The Catholics, along with all other cults, have made their own private interpretation of the Bible. No one outside of their particular cult has the right to interpret it for themselves. Only the cult (in this case the cult of RCC) has the private interpretation of the Bible. The true believer has the soul liberty that God has given him to obey the Scriptures and:
Study to show himself approved,
Search the Scriptures,
Take heed to the doctrine (study it first), etc.

The Catholic Church adherents cannot do this. They are mindless robots spoonfed whatever heeretical doctrines the RCC teaches them. Private interpretation belongs only to the magesterium.

You apparently did not read the quote I gave you, so I will post it again:

New Testament writers affirm the Old Testament as God's word. In fact, three hundred and twenty times New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as God's word. One thousand times they allude to it as God's word in a clear and definite reference to some Old Testament passage. So thirteen hundred times New Testament writers affirm the Old Testament and they do it in the law, the Pentateuch. They do it in the history books. They do it in the minor prophets, the major prophets, and the holy writings, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and so forth.

In other words, they affirm every section of Old Testament scripture as being the word of God in unself-conscious ways. And then they in the New Testament go on to write what they write with that same utter absence of self-consciousness.

James was writing his own book and called it scripture. He says, "Do you think the scripture speak to no purpose" in James 4:5. He calls his own books, book James, scripture. Paul reading the law of God, the Old Testament, said the law is holy, just and good. He affirms the holiness, the perfection of God's law, the Old Testament. Jude quotes Peter as scripture. Peter quotes Paul as scripture. And John quotes himself as scripture. John just finished writing the letters to the churches, he says let the churches hear what the Spirit says. John knew he was writing what the Spirit was saying, not what he was saying. The Bible is not some high level of human genius.

DHK

 

[frozencell]

Before I respond to your message I would like to point out something to you.

From this board's TOS:

"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, hateful, harassing, libelous, pornographic, abusive, obscene, profane, invasive of a person's privacy, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. We reserve the right to delete any message, topic, to ban a username, IP address, domain name, or email address for *any reason* that we feel is deserved."

Please try to at least adhere to your own rules. It would be much appreciated. I have opted for this route rather than reporting and hope that you take heed.

Also remember, judge not lest you be judged.

Okay, on to your post.

Wisdom 2 speaks of the outlook of a man who questions life hereafter.

Actually, the verses I references I pointed out in Chapter 2 is a clear reference to the life and persecution of Christ. I would encourage you to show me otherwise, specifically.

2 Peter 1:20,21 destroys your case, rather than helping it.

cult (klt) n.

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
6. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
7. The object of such devotion.
8. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

According to the dictionary, you are part of a cult, also. Please do not display such a looseness with this term as it can backfire easily. As I said, in debating circles, cult is usually a term reserved for those religions or sects that have appeared in the recent past.

I find it highly oxymoronic that you would say the RCC interpretation is private interpretation and the Protestant interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. Both religions have claimed the same thing (guidance of the Holy Spirit in it's understanding of the full Scriptures) and all you have accomplished is unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

[qutoe]They are mindless robots spoonfed whatever heretical doctrines the RCC teaches them.[/quote]

Your name-calling, I assure you, has not been taken lightly. In these times of the flesh controlling your anger please try and reflect on what the Lord would do in such a situation. It is not righteous anger when we regress to such child-like behavior.

I will reply at a later time about which OT books are not quoted by NT authors. Thank you for your patience.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:

According to the dictionary, you are part of a cult, also. Please do not display such a looseness with this term as it can backfire easily. As I said, in debating circles, cult is usually a term reserved for those religions or sects that have appeared in the recent past.

I define a cult according to the characteristics which it displays relative to Christianity, not relative to secularism (the dictionary). The Catholics on this board have frequently referred to the Montanists (ca. 300 A.D.) as a cult, so obviously it does not refer to just recent groups.

I find it highly oxymoronic that you would say the RCC interpretation is private interpretation and the Protestant interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. Both religions have claimed the same thing (guidance of the Holy Spirit in it's understanding of the full Scriptures) and all you have accomplished is unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

I stated firmly what I believed in descriptive language meant to get a point across. It was not meant to be mud-slinging. Catholics are spoon-fed their doctrines. They don't have to think for themselves. They memorize whatever the magesterium gives them. That is privated interpretation. It is the interpretation of the Catholic Church, and the only interpretation which you are allowed to believe. It is private. The Baptist is a priest before God, and has the soul liberty to allow the Holy Spirit to illumine his heart as he studies the Scriptures to find and interpret the truth on his own. This is what the Bereans do, whom Paul commended as being noble. Acts 17:11

[qutoe]They are mindless robots spoonfed whatever heretical doctrines the RCC teaches them.[/quote]
True. I make no apology.

Your name-calling, I assure you, has not been taken lightly. In these times of the flesh controlling your anger please try and reflect on what the Lord would do in such a situation. It is not righteous anger when we regress to such child-like behavior.

There was no anger in what I said, only an accurate portrayal of what I believe to be the truth. I was a Catholic for twenty years. I know what the Catholic Church teaches. I had to memorize it, and still have much of the mass memorized in Latin. It was a comparison between those who have soul liberty and those who have to depend on an organization that forces their PRIVATE INTERPRETATION on others. It is too bad that Catholics cannot or are not allowed to think for themselves when it comes to the Scripture. In my days as a Catholic, we were not allowed to have a Bible.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

There was no anger in what I said, only an accurate portrayal of what I believe to be the truth. I was a Catholic for twenty years. I know what the Catholic Church teaches. I had to memorize it, and still have much of the mass memorized in Latin. It was a comparison between those who have soul liberty and those who have to depend on an organization that forces their PRIVATE INTERPRETATION on others. It is too bad that Catholics cannot or are not allowed to think for themselves when it comes to the Scripture. In my days as a Catholic, we were not allowed to have a Bible.
DHK

Well, I was a Protestant for 20 years. I know what the Protestant church teaches. I have found a fullness in the Catholic church that the Protestant church lacked. Also, I was wondering exactly who it was that didn't allow you to have a Bible, because when I joined RCIA class they GAVE me a Bible. It seems contradictory to their goal to not give you a Bible. And I have thought for myself, seeing as to how I was not a cradle Catholic and was once vehemently opposed to the Catholic religion. Do you think that maybe it's just EASIER to be Baptist? Or Protestant, for that matter?

On the name-calling...Maybe you could just use a little bit more adult language. I could resort to calling Baptists names and say that's how I see it, but I ahve chosen to be more like Christ in this aspect. I encourage you to do the same.

 

[DHK]

Things have only changed since Vatican II to my knowledge. Who never allowed Bibles? It was a common practice among the Catholic Church in general to forbid or discourage Bible reading in my day, just as it was in Tyndale's day when they burned all of his Bible's and then proceeded to burn Tyndale himself.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

Things have only changed since Vatican II to my knowledge. Who never allowed Bibles? It was a common practice among the Catholic Church in general to forbid or discourage Bible reading in my day, just as it was in Tyndale's day when they burned all of his Bible's and then proceeded to burn Tyndale himself.
DHK

I can guess relatively your age and "your day". I have nevr met a Catholic of your approx. age that was encouraged to not read or own the Bible. During the Reformation, translations were highly discouraged because of fear of mistranslation.
Plus the illiteracy rate was through the roof, anyhow. To use the argument that it was to personally interpret the Bible to their own means is ludicrious because, last time I checked, the books that we have in common in our Bibles say the exact same thing. It would be a massive, humanly impossible undertaking to slowly change the translations over the years to accomplish identical translations between Catholics and Protestants without anyone noticing, if in fact they were purposely mistranslating them before (which is what you were going to say next).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
I can guess relatively your age and "your day". I have nevr met a Catholic of your approx. age that was encouraged to not read or own the Bible. During the Reformation, translations were highly discouraged because of fear of mistranslation.

According to the many Catholic apologists that have posted here, to this day the only ones in the Catholic Church that have the authority to give interpretation to the Scriptures are the priests, and bishops, etc. The common lay person may read the Bible, but may not interpret the Bible. There is no soul liberty in this respect in the RCC. You can read but the private interpretation belongs to the RCC. You are not allowed to permit the Holy Spirit to illumine your heart as to the truth of what the meaning of the Scripture is. Sure, Catholics of today may read the Bible, they just aren't allowed to "understand" it.

During the reformation there was a fear of bad translations, therefore they burned Bibles--a reference to William Tyndale. What a farce that is. Every translation today owes a great debt of gratitude to the enormous work of Tyndale. It is Tyndale's Bible that is the foundation of the KJV. The Catholics tried to destroy it; but God had other plans.

Tyndale was a man of heroic stature and died a martyr’s death. In England alone, more than 1,000 people were burned between 1400 and 1557 for the sake of the Gospel. Tyndale’s books and tracts (or "pestilent glosses" as his enemies referred to them) were smuggled into England wrapped in bales of wool or cloth, or sacks of flour by fellow "Lollards". Had he remained a Catholic priest Tyndale would no doubt have been canonized as a saint, but had he remained a Catholic he would not have attempted to translate the Bible without official sanction. Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation which dated back to the 4th century. It was thus a closed book even to most clergymen. Tyndale was determined to make God’s Word accessible to all men.

T h e "C r i m e s" o f W i l l i a m T y n d a l e . . .
First: He maintains that faith alone justifies.
Second: He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
Third: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal.
Fourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
Fifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
Sixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their own person.
Seventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.

Plus the illiteracy rate was through the roof, anyhow. To use the argument that it was to personally interpret the Bible to their own means is ludicrious because, last time I checked, the books that we have in common in our Bibles say the exact same thing. It would be a massive, humanly impossible undertaking to slowly change the translations over the years to accomplish identical translations between Catholics and Protestants without anyone noticing, if in fact they were purposely mistranslating them before (which is what you were going to say next).

As you can see from the above quotes, destroying Bibles at the time of Tyndale had nothing to do with the illiteracy rate. That is Catholic revisionism. Keeping the Bible out of the hands of the common person has been the aim of the Catholic Church since its inception.
Except for the Apocrypha the Bibles say essentially the same thing, I agree. I can show you the way of salvation in a Catholic Bible just as well as I can in my KJV. That is not why Bibles were destroyed. They were destroyed to keep them out of the hands of the common person.

For the quotes, See:
William Tyndale
DHK

 

[frozencell]

There was only one part of your post I found I need to respond to as the rest only restates your first one, which i have already answered.

...the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe...

Just one question....so how was the Catholic Church trying to keep the Bible out of the hands of the layperson again? You seem to have proved my point for me.

Also, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'interpretation'. The Holy Spirit opens your mind to more clear understanding, not another interpretation.

I am a Catholic because I believe what the Catholic Church states as Truth from Christ Himself, not because the Catholic Church told me I had to become Catholic. Does that make any sense?