-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Does the RCC have extra Books In their canon?
- Thread starter DaChaser1
- Start date
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.
Heard of it, have used it to study, But it was NOT included as being part of deciding canon of scriptures!
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.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
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. 
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?
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:
WestminsterMan
New Member
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
seekingthetruth
New Member
Their gospel is not scripitual to begin with.
Why would you expect them to be biblical now?
John
Why would you expect them to be biblical now?
John
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
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.
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!
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.
They can't unless you back up your claim with evidence.
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!
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.
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.