catholic church bible

Like what are some books that a Catholic Bible has and another doesn't? Thanks! Is it just Maccabees?

None, The Protestants took some away.

In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.

The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.

Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants.

Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas”, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.


In Christ

Fr. Joseph

2009-03-17 21:14:03 by Alfred

Many Roman Catholics claim that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) produced the Bible (God#39;s Word) to which they do not use very often... The ...

After doing much research, it seems to me that the Catholic Church picked and chose what to put in the Bible, there were other texts of the time but they chose not to put them in because it would put into question some beliefs that they want the blind faithfull to follow.
Again....this isn't ment to discredit Jesus or God.

No texts were eliminated by the Catholic Church to promote the Holy Bible.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church selected the correct texts to include in the New Testament.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church did not include texts that were obviously not inspired by the Holy Spirit. This included things like the Gospel of Judas written by the heretical Gnostics.

All subsequent Christian denominations have agreed with these decisions and have neither included not excluded any other writings.

With love in Christ.

2008-11-21 05:42:51 by Football Guru

Price: $34.95 $23.07

ISBN13: 9781592761401
Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Condition: New

Are there Catholics who would say that very little of the Bible is objectively historical, and if so, how are they viewed within the church hierarchy?

The Bible is to be read within the teaching authority of the Church. The Church teaches Scripture using proper biblical hermeneutical principals considering Sacred Tradition, historical and grammatical evidence. God bless!

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

2009-05-24 11:31:35 by Citizen of the Cosmos

Price: $21.95 $14.93

ISBN13: 9781592760671
Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Condition: New

WHY DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BIBLE CONTAIN MORE GOSPELS THAN A BAPTIST ETC.?

The Catholic church does not have more gospels than the Baptist Church (unless you have less than four). Unless you are referring to the Apochrypha or Deutero-Canon books.

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and "parts" of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the early beginnings of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

Since the first century, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible.

Well, when the Protestant Reformation took place, a lot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty controversial thing to say.
So Luther cut that stuff out.

So the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same (the canon of th Catholic church at the time of the reformation was in fact in practice since the 5th century). So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.

This is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.
So now you understand the debate.

Very few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the ideas of Purgatory and praying to saints finds its strongest support there,), but there are various works of various merit.

If I were you, I'd go buy a New Revised Standard Version. It's a great translation, it's got the extra books (and even some extra books only used by the Eastern Orthodox churches), but they are set apart, so you know where they're at, and when you're reading 'protestant bible' and 'catholic bible.'

2006-05-29 17:45:08 by lilly_godsoath

As in, If the Catholic Church truly didn't put the bible together, how would we know which of the probably hundreds of writings that were floating around, were heretic? And remember, in the oldest bible known, the NT had the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepard of Hermes, which looks kinda Gnostic in nature.

So how would we know there weren't inspired if it wasnt for the Catholic Church?

You need to brush up on your history. The Catholic Church DID put the Bible together. You are correct in pointing out the dilemma faced by the bishops of the time when they were trying to compile the Bible. There WERE hundreds of other writings floating around, some sincere, some heretical. So, yes, who DID make the decision about what was inspired and what wasn't? How DO we know which books were inspired and which weren't?

Answer: The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, made that decision.

I would ask you another question. If a person doesn't believe the Church had the authority to compile the Bible, then who did? And where does their authority come from to decide that?

God bless.

2009-01-27 09:49:03 by Lion of Judah Regular