Deuterocanonical books of the Bible?

Question

All the writers and authors of the New Testament were Catholics. The Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture and gave us the Bible in 393. At that time they adopted the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament because it was the one used by Christ and the apostles. (Even the protestant Bibles have quotes from Jesus and the apostles which refer back to these books).

I know Martin Luther wanted to make his own doctrines and threw out several books from both the Old and New Testaments (He called James "An epistle of straw"). Most protestants later restored the New Testament books, but not the Old, adopting the Hebrew (Saducees) version instead.

On what grounds?



http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

Answer 1

Before one can answer your last question, one must address a few misconceptions. WHile the early Roman Catholic Church fathers, notably, Eusibius were very much in charge of selecting the various letters and gospels for the Bible, or Canon of the Church, there was generally concensus that the various letters needed to include the various pagan teachings in order to placate the Roman gentile pagans that were brought into the Church by Constatinius decree that Christianity was to be the ONE official religion. Thereby, much of the Church doctrines were embellisments as well as plain plagiarism of pagan cult doctrines and Eusibius did all he could to both include what he thought were supportive of the Christian Apologia,,as well as Censored any letters that were not as supportive.
In consideration of the statement you made, that Jesus Christ used the Septuagint, there is no such evidence, indeed, there is not one shred of actual evidence that there was even such a person, but strong evidence does exist that various pagan teachings were simply attached or credited to the new religion, and Christianity's leading figure, name of Jesus, was attributed with all the various pagan savior man god deity attributes. The important thing to understand, is that there is no evidence for the actual real existance for Jesus or the other Gospel narrative characters. Evidence does support that the RC Church has over the past two millenia often done as much to correct many errors of the gospel and epistle letters as possible,,,yet the fact stands, the harmony of the gospels is a virtual impossible task, as a close study will evidence. On the other hand, one can always believe whatever one choses....even a lie. But it doesnt make it true. Sincerely.

Answer 2

Close...
The Torah, (the Jewish version of the Old Testament) was official closed by them around 400-350 BC. It contains the same 37 books that make up the Protestant version of the Old Testament.

But in the 400 year period between the Old and New, people continued to write books about God. When a group of Greek scholars (not Jews) made a Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, they included nine additional books or additions to books not included in the Torah.

The Greek Septuagint became "the Torah" of Jesus' time because more people spoke Greek then Hebrew (The Jew's language at the time was Aramic, not Hebrew). So it is the Septugiant that is quoted thoughout the New Testament. (Plus since the NT was written in Greek, it would have been a problem to have Hebrew quotes in the middle of it.)

If was St Jerome, who made the first translation of the Bible into Latin (called the Vulgatem and "the Bible" for a thousand years) who moved those books into a separate section in the 400 ADs - not Martin Luther in the 1400 ADs. He did so because they were not recognized by the Jews as part of the Old Testament. And the council in 393 that gave us the Bible only standardized the New Testament. They made no ruling on the Old Testament. So such neither group recognized them as scripture, he placed them separate from the rest.

Between Jerome in 400 and Luther in 1400, Bibles were often produced without the books becuse they were considered to be of lesser inspiration then the other books. There was never a time (before Luther) when they were official considered scripture.

With the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's Bible translations began to appear all over the place. The deuterocanon books did not appear in those translations, just like they did not appear in the majority of Catholic Vulgate Bibles.

It was after that time the Catholic official recognized those books and ordered all future Bibles printed with them included. Many believe it was so they could stop people from reading the Potestant translation by pointing out that they were "missing" part of the Bible. (At this time all most all the Protestant Bibles were printed with two columns on a page. One was the text of the Bible, and the other Protestant commentary on it. It was the commentary that Catholics objected to.)

Today, Protestants still do not recognize the nine books. And it is about 50/50 whether they are included in a Catholic Bible, and then usually in a separate section.

Answer 3

Protestants were pretty much making it up as they went along, anyway, so why not use an abridged version of the holy book?

It's just like when you're looking at imitation movies. Star Wars was a pretty good movie. Battlefield Earth was a pale imitation built only to serve the political and idealogical needs of those who created it.

Answer 4

The Roman catholic church will lead you to a lost eternity ,