???Those are in my "Roman" Catholic Bible...what are you talking about? EDIT--Sorry- Read it wrong...
I believe there are only 2 that aren't in the RC Bible, and that would be Maccabees 3&4--that would be because their authorship was probably very late Judaism or even during the Christian era. The others are in our Bible...we call Wisdom of Solomon "Wisdom" and Wisdom of Sirach "Sirach." 1 Esdras is just a Greek version of the book of Ezra.
Lol I believe you are right forgive me. As to the authorship I cannot dispute it but until a full council is called they cannot be changed or removed (not saying would be I dont know). But agian you are correct I should have payed more attention.
The books that Roman Catholics have that Protestants reject, were added for one reason only. They needed them to combat the Protestant revolt. They were not included because of their acceptance by the people of God. They were always questionable and rejected until the Reformation. Quantrill
There are 12 books the Roman Church added into their Bible. Some are interspersed within other books that are canonical. Quantrill
The Apocryaphal books were not declared canonical until the Council of Trent. This council was concerned with combatting the Protestant revolt. Luther always told the Roman Catholics that they could not show him in Scripture where he was wrong. So they canoninized more material. Quantrill
The Church was begun by Christ. The Roman Church is not the oldest and original Church. The Church began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost. Roman Catholicism is older than Protestantism but that is not the same thing. Many local churches were already in existance before the church in Rome was begun. Quantrill
That doesn't answer the question. How does the interpretation of the bible by a different sect matter? I read in a different thread that the ten commandments, golden rule and psalm 23 are the building blocks of morality in the western world. Protestants and Catholics share that. So what if they use some books and not other.
Also I would like to add the Eastern Orthodoxy is the same age as Catholicism since the original Christian church split off into those two separate sects. http://www.lightplanet.com/christianity/christian_timeline.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
If i was religious id say if it's not in latin or greek or a direct translation of the oldest books ever found, its just man manipulating the word of god and anyone who follows them are heathens who will spend eternity in hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
Uhhh wrong. The Council was mainly to confirm the Catholic beliefs. The "Apocrapha" was all ready used centuries before. Ever herd of the Latin Vulgate?
Yes, I would agree Eastern Orthodoxy would be as old as the Roman Church. But I don't see the Roman Church as the original church. Quantrill
" By Roman Catholic reckoning the nineteenth ecumenical council, it was brought about by the continuing success of the Protestant Movement. " (New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.984) "The breakthrough of Catholic reform had in fact come about only under the pressure of the Reformation. The Reformation was thus not only the occasion for the gathering of the church at Trent, as some Catholic church historians think; it also challenged it, accelerated it, and was its permanent opponent. The Counter Reformation did not begin, as the Catholic conciliar historian Hubert Jedin thinks, only seventy-five years after the convening of the council, but with the council itself." (The Catholic Church, Hans Kung, p.136) Even though the Apocrypha books were known and included in some Bibles, they were separated with the statements that they were not canonical. Even Jerome who translated the Vulgate was clear that the Apocryphal books were not inspired. They were given canonical status when at Trent the Roman Church declared that the Vulgate was the only text that appeal could be made. And though Jerome made distinction between the Apocrypha and Scripture, the Council of Trent did not. Quantrill
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure. Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others. Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth. Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17. Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28. Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15. Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17. MORE HERE: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
I should hope that if Catholics believe in the veracity of their claims as a religion, they would know enough about why they believe what they believe to defend their beliefs. Not only that, I would expect them to be willing to point out where others are incorrect in their doctrine. If Catholics believe their church and doctrine is as God would want it to be, they would desire that others know of their knowledge.
From an internal perspective, I have to wonder why Christianity even clings to an "old testament." From a historical perspective, I think the answer is relatively obvious. In its early days, Christianity sought to piggyback on the respect of Hebrew religion, it already having a long history even then. Islam had the same idea in mind when it usurped Hebrew stories 500 years later.
