Why Can’t Evangelicals See the Eucharist?

by Steve Ray on May 16, 2013

I was recently asked why Evangelicals cannot see the Eucharist and Real Presence in the Bible. This person said that when they read the Bible it seems so clear — especially John 6 where Jesus says “Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood . . .” and at the Last Supper when he said, “This IS my flesh.”

“Why is it so easy to see for me,” she wrote, “while Evangelicals miss  it?”

alife-super-sunglasses-1There are a good number of explanations for this, but I tried to put it in simple terms. I responded:

“In answer to your question it all depends on what kind of glasses you are wearing. If you wear dark colored glasses you see things differently than if you wear clear or red shaded glasses. Every tradition, whether it is Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or Lutheran has a tradition or grid through which they read and interpret the Bible. No one approaches the Bible objectively without any preconceived ideas or convictions.

“If one wears Baptist glasses and is convinced of the Baptist teaching, then they will see everything they read through their own Baptist ideas or tradition; they read their tradition into the text. Since they are told the Eucharist is only symbolic, they twist and tug to make Scripture fit their perspective.

“Also, as Evangelicals we (or at least I) was convinced the Catholic Church was wrong and we didn’t even understand what they believed or the basis for it. I also didn’t know that ALL Christians for the first 1500 years believed what Catholic’s now teach. And that even now ALL Christians around the world believe in the Real Presence except for a very small sliver of the Christian pie — the Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and a few other newly invented groups.

“The Catholic also has a tradition which has been handed down from the apostles. We can trace it with full confidence back to Jesus himself. When we read the Bible we have on our Catholic glasses which enables us to understand the Scriptures the way the apostles wrote it and the early Church understood it. We trust Scripture and the Tradition and this tradition is that which was taught by the apostles (2 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).

Be proud, yet humble, to be Catholic!”

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }

CMWoodall November 24, 2009 at 11:45 AM

If evangelicals were consistent they could not be allowed to see the Trinity, pre-incarnate Christ, most prophecy, nor any other analogical connection in the whole Old Testament. They only allow for things like the proto-evangelion [Gen. 3:15] because it so clearly points to the crucifixion. They only use the lens of literal interpretation unless the baptist scholar points it out to them otherwise. They adamantly refuse the four senses of scripture that the catechism explains.
Sometimes the lenses are more than colored…they are out of focus.

grandprixmama6 November 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM

I really think it is a matter of faith…..even as Catholics who are suppose to believe in the “Real Presence”, it is difficult to wrap our minds around !!! .many of us, including myself are still “doubting Thomas’. It is very difficult and we have to use all or faith at the time of the consecretion and focus on what is happening….or it goes over our heads !!!!

Many of us, I think, take transubstantiation for granted….I see people taking communion in a very casual way….if we truly knew what was happening at each Mass…..THINK ABOUT IT….next time you receive…..it does make a difference to put our minds and hearts to what is happening…otherwise our minds can shift to the material so easily and we miss Jesus being truly present !!!!!

G Edmonds November 8, 2010 at 10:57 AM

In John 6 and at the Last Supper we read Jesus say the words that a person must drink His blood.

It can be summarised as follows:
• Same Teacher (Jesus)
• Same words (drink My blood)
• Same Feast (Passover – one year apart)
• Same people being taught (The Apostles – the ones who didn’t walk away from Jesus in John 6 – although protestants will say they didn’t walk away because they got it right and understood Jesus words as symbolic or some such thing )
• Same understanding/meaning – the only difference being, the second time Jesus said the exact same words He hands a cup to the Apostles and they drink.
• Same person being identified as betraying Jesus is both discourses (Judas)

• One could add in another Same, with the same understanding/doctrine for the last 2000 years – the wine becomes the actual literal and spiritual blood of Jesus.

Maybe our non Catholic friends overlooked the fact that a miracle occurs every time Jesus gave the blessing/gave thanks throughout the Gospels.

The Last Supper was no exception. Which leads me to point 2 below.

2. The Power of the Blessing
The Power of the Blessing – It is the Spirit That Gives Life!
Do non-catholics miss this whole “blessing/give thanks” thing?
What do we see at the beginning of John 6?
We see Jesus multiply 5 loaves. How?
Jesus took bread, GAVE THANKS, and handed the bread out.
It was a supernatural event – a miracle performed by Jesus.
The very next day Jesus said to all those that followed Him to ‘eat His flesh and drink His blood’.

What do we see at the Last Supper?
Those two events that happened one day apart in John 6 get combined.

Jesus took bread, GAVE THANKS and handed the bread out while saying ‘this is My body, take and eat’ and likewise He did the same with the cup of wine. Jesus took the cup GAVE THANKS and handed the Cup saying “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Luke records how important this meal was with Jesus saying He earnestly desired (key words to gain an insight as to how important Jesus viewed this meal) to eat this Passover with His disciples and it was here He established the New Covenant.
The Last Supper was a supernatural event – a miracle was performed by Jesus.

Although that should be enough, Jesus reinforced this when He met with the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30). He took the bread, BLESSED (GAVE THANKS) and handed it to them and at that moment He disappeared at the breaking of the bread. This meal was a supernatural event – a miracle was performed by Jesus. Another observation can be made here, scripture alone was not enough for the disciples to see Jesus.

To sum it up – when Jesus blesses the meal as He has done above, the Spirit gives life and the supernatural occurs.

Just make sure we understand the Blessing does not happen at all the meals of Jesus but only at very ‘instructional’ meals may I suggest you read when Jesus eats fish in Luke 24:43 and bread and fish in John 21:13 – there is no blessing – no giving thanks.

And if someone objects by stating that God only goes inside humans, they have not read about the burning bush in the Book of Exodus.

3. Transubstantiation
Simple research would reveal the Catholic Church agrees with other non catholic Christians in that it is definitely spiritual. The priest at every Mass at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist refers to the wine saying it will become our spiritual drink.

Amen to the fact it is the Spirit that gives LIFE! It is a spiritual reality! (reality = real)

But importantly non catholic Christians interpret these words as spiritual and figurative whereas the Catholic Church interprets these words as spiritual and literal.

Catholic Christians say if you are a Christian you literally are a new creation in Christ. Catholics believe the Spirit changes things for real.

The Spirit gives literal life even if the outside looks the same as before!

That is a Biblical concept.

To modify the word pagan, Christians “are no longer” pagans, “but only retain their appearance of being” pagans. What has changed – the Spirit within the person!

This is the same for the Real Presence.

Transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are changed even though their appearance is not.

Therefore non Catholic Christians must believe that ALL Christians are only figuratively a new creation and must think the Spirit gives only a figurative life. Therefore, you might label yourself a Christian but you are figuratively a Christian but literally you are a pagan on the outside and on the inside.

Erika November 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM

I was in a fundamentalist, evangelical-type church for six years before I converted to the Catholic Church. I can’t tell you how many times I read that passage out of John 6 — however, it was as if I wasn’t reading it at all. It was meaningless to me. I didn’t understand what Jesus was saying, but like many other Scripture passages that I didn’t understand (the ones that Protestants largely avoid due to their Catholic nature) I basically would gloss over them and move on. I didn’t even realize there was the possibility of taking it literally, as nothing I had ever been taught about the faith indicated I should. In fact I wouldn’t ever have linked John 6 to the teachings on the Lord’s Supper. It is embarrassing to admit it, but my critical thinking skills were largely in the “off” position for many years. It’s very easy, I think especially when you’re in a fundamentalist community, to simply imbibe what the pastor and teachers say and never look beyond that. It is only by the grace of God, I think, that I finally began asking critical questions about the Scriptures (and ironically, it was exactly that passage out of John 6 that finally came to life for me and ultimately caused me to examine and embrace the Catholic Church).

mnMARK November 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Can an Episcopalian be entered into the heavenly arms of God since they do not receive the sacrament as the proper belief of a Catholic? They do believe the complete transformation of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am awakened as being raised a Catholic married to an Episcopalian of our blindness as we talk about the unity of the Anglican community (Ephisians 4:11-13.

Michael February 23, 2011 at 4:45 AM

Jesus was very clear in what we must do in order to have Him ABIDE in us and we in Him.

He left this command for us in John 6:53-57, and it is the only place in Holy Scripture in which you will find it:
53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (the taken away branch); 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD ABIDES IN ME, AND I IN HIM. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

What does “Truly, truly” mean to you in verse 53? What does “unless” mean?
The body lives because it receives real food sustenance. Starve the body and it will die.
Just as the body needs real sustenance, so does the soul, else it will not bear fruit.
The soul lives by real Divine sustenance, the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Frank January 20, 2012 at 5:14 AM

Grandprixmama6

You nailed it – that’s the best analogy ever to explain why the appearnce of the bread and wine do not have to change for there to be a complete change in their substance. I will use it as an analogy to explain to my non-catholic friends that following their baptism/dedication to Christ they will still have the same outward appearance i.e. pagans, yet inside they have completely changed as the have been filled with the holy spirit.

drea916 January 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What kills me is that they love Jesus SO much. I want to jump up and down and tell them “He’s down the street at Mass. Come on! Let’s Go!!!!” But they miss it, and it makes me sad :(

Dan January 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM

A couple weeks ago, Sr. Briege McKenna appeared on EWTN, discussing the Eucharist. The gist of what she said was that if we really believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, every time we receive Communion should be the most important moment in our lives. How humble and loving our God is!

God bless,
Dan

Colin De Sa May 16, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Michael

Beautiful point . John Salza also uses this during the ‘faith and works’ debates . He says even if someone may deny the Eucharist and think its symbolic , Jesus is plainly telling us we need to ‘do’ something to be saved .

Ave Maria.

Jewel May 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Reading a lot of what Mother Teresa had to say about the Eucharist: The one thing that clinches the argument is the physical person of Christ, Himself. He is fully Divine, being God in the flesh. He says, “who has seen Me has seen the Father.” The Eucharist is a continuation.

http://www.acfp2000.com/Saints/Mother_Teresa/Mother_Teresa.html

David Jones May 18, 2013 at 6:15 AM

Man you guys have an extremely narrow view of what constitutes an “evangelical”!!!

I also find it rather bizarre that you see so many “lenses” except of course the one through which you stare when you (Catholics) read Scripture!

Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Amen!

Steve Ray May 18, 2013 at 7:14 AM

Does anyone really know what constitutes an “evangelical” any more. That term has become very murky as the whole movement as morphed into many permutations. Anyway, we Catholics readily admit we have a tradition. That was included in the last paragraph of my blog post.
We proudly hold to the Apostolic and Catholic Tradition of 2,000 years. “Evangelicals” claim to have no tradition but to read the Bible Alone. They don’t realize that that, in and of itself, is a novel tradition of recent origin. Their tradition of “sola Scriptura” itself cannot be found in the Bible alone.
No one comes to the Bible without some preconceived ideas or received traditions. I was raised Baptist and claimed Bible Along – no tradition. I realized later that I was well immersed in Baptist tradition before I could ever even read the Bible for myself.

Veronica Salazar May 21, 2013 at 9:17 AM

I am always surprised by some Fundamentalists. They say they believe the Bible literally, even believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old! But when it comes to John 6, their literal interpretation ceases and it becomes symbollic.

De Maria June 8, 2013 at 2:13 AM

David Jones May 18, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Man you guys have an extremely narrow view of what constitutes an “evangelical”!!!….Sola Fide,

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Sola Gratia,

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Sola Scriptura,
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Solus Christus,

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Soli Deo Gloria,

2 Thessalonians 1:12
That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

God alone is glorified by us. But God glorifies all who have faith in Him and persevere in good works to the end.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Amen!

Not to the Protestant errors. But to the Wisdom of God which is taught by the Catholic Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Alray August 8, 2013 at 10:22 PM

David Jones

King James Bible incomplete to justify Sola Scriptura.

-Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Every Judeo-Christian Bible compiled before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 CE) had the Apocrypha in it – without any “non-canon disclaimers”. These ancient, complete bibles include the Septuagint, Ethiopian Orthodox, Peshitta and Dead Sea scrolls. Since Georgia is in the Bible Belt, every Christian should know the truth about their scriptures.

Did the Roman Catholic Church add extra books to the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563? The answer is no. In fact it was the Protestant churches that deleted some books from the Holy Bible! Protestants have never answered the following question: If the Vatican added extra books to the Holy Bible in 1545 then how and why did the Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Ukrainian, Ethiopian) Christian churches have the extra books in their Holy Bibles too after the Great Schism of 1054?

A brief history of Britain’s most prestigious Holy Bible version should be given. It contradicts the account told to us by our Protestant brethren. When the authorized King James Bible first premiered in 1611, the “extra Apocrypha/deuterocanonical” books were included in all of the bibles printed by the Cambridge University Press. The Apocrypha books (Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) were sandwiched in between the Old Testament and New Testament in all of the 1611 versions. Eighteen years later, and after the death of King James, the Cambridge University Press began to print some bibles without the Apocrypha because the damned Calvinists requested them! The Calvinists wanted the authorized King James Bible to resemble their unauthorized Geneva Bible. The Calvinist monarch, Oliver Cromwell, briefly ruled England during the 1650s after winning the English Civil War. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell no English printing press included the Apocrypha in the Holy Bible. To the present day it is rare to find a King James Bible, or any Protestant bible, that contains the Apocrypha books. But the Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic churches continue to print their Holy Bibles with the “extra” Apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in them.

Which version of the Holy Bible was quoted from and used by the Apostles of Jesus Christ? The answer is the Septuagint. The Septuagint was written by Hellenistic Jews, in the Greek language, between 299-140 BCE. The original Septuagint was kept in the great library of Alexandria, Egypt. As is explained in the preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed’s The Apocrypha (1959), “But the Apocrypha books were part of the Holy Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books (Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) were all in that version. They passed from it into Latin and the great Latin Vulgate Bible edited by St. Jerome about 405 CE which became the Authorized Bible of Western Europe and England for a thousand years. But St. Jerome found that some books were not in the Hebrew Bible, and so he called them the Apocrypha, the hidden or secret books.”

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek and the Apocrypha is in the Dead Sea scrolls too. Origen (185 – 254 CE) and Saint Augustine of Hippo declared the Septuagint and Apocrypha to be canonical. The New Testament book of Hebrews 11:35 references Second Maccabees and Revelation 1:4 & 8:3-4 reference Tobit 12:15 according to the textbook Christianity for Dummies by Richard Wagner. The first Gutenberg Bible, printed in 1456, had the Apocrypha in it without any disclaimers. Jewish History professor Heinrich Graetz stated, “The Jews did not begin to canonize the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) until after the Council of Jamnia in 90 CE by which time the Apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had already transferred all of their Old Testament books, which included the Apocrypha books of Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc., into Christianity. After 185 CE the Jews began to write down the Talmud and relegate the Hebrew Bible to secondary status.” The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Bible by James Stuart Bell & Stan Campbell, Christianity for Dummies by Richard Wagner, God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicolson and the website fisheaters.com go into further detail on the topics of the Apocrypha, Septuagint, Ancient Christianity and the original 1611 King James Version Bible.

It is ironic that Protestants, who rely so heavily on “sola scriptura”, have been using an incomplete Holy Bible for hundreds of years. Not only are Protestant bibles incomplete but their Old Testaments are flawed because they rebuke the Greek Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet it was the Septuagint that was the Holy Bible of the Apostles! The Apostles were comfortable with the Greek language which is part of the reason they wrote the first-ever New Testament in Greek.

Alray August 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM

David Jones

King James Bible incomplete the justify “Sola Scriptura”

Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Every Judeo-Christian Bible compiled before

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 CE) had the Apocrypha in it – without any “non-canon

disclaimers”. These ancient, complete bibles include the Septuagint, Ethiopian

Orthodox, Peshitta and Dead Sea scrolls. The Bible Belt, every Christian should

know the truth about their scriptures.

Did the Roman Catholic Church add extra books to the Holy Bible at the Council

of Trent in 1545-1563? The answer is no. In fact it was the Protestant churches

that deleted some books from the Holy Bible! Protestants have never answered the

following question: If the Vatican added extra books to the Holy Bible in 1545

then how and why did the Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Ukrainian, Ethiopian)

Christian churches have the extra books in their Holy Bibles too after the Great

Schism of 1054?

A brief history of Britain’s most prestigious Holy Bible version should be

given. It contradicts the account told to us by our Protestant brethren. When

the authorized King James Bible first premiered in 1611, the “extra

Apocrypha/deuterocanonical” books were included in all of the bibles printed by

the Cambridge University Press. The Apocrypha books (Second Maccabees, Tobit,

etc.) were sandwiched in between the Old Testament and New Testament in all of

the 1611 versions. Eighteen years later, and after the death of King James, the

Cambridge University Press began to print some bibles without the Apocrypha

because the damned Calvinists requested them! The Calvinists wanted the

authorized King James Bible to resemble their unauthorized Geneva Bible. The

Calvinist monarch, Oliver Cromwell, briefly ruled England during the 1650s after

winning the English Civil War. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell no English

printing press included the Apocrypha in the Holy Bible. To the present day it

is rare to find a King James Bible, or any Protestant bible, that contains the

Apocrypha books. But the Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic churches continue

to print their Holy Bibles with the “extra” Apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in

them.

Which version of the Holy Bible was quoted from and used by the Apostles of

Jesus Christ? The answer is the Septuagint. The Septuagint was written by

Hellenistic Jews, in the Greek language, between 299-140 BCE. The original

Septuagint was kept in the great library of Alexandria, Egypt. As is explained

in the preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed’s The Apocrypha (1959), “But the Apocrypha

books were part of the Holy Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek

version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books

(Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) were all in that version. They passed from it

into Latin and the great Latin Vulgate Bible edited by St. Jerome about 405 CE

which became the Authorized Bible of Western Europe and England for a thousand

years. But St. Jerome found that some books were not in the Hebrew Bible, and so

he called them the Apocrypha, the hidden or secret books.”

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek and the Apocrypha is in the

Dead Sea scrolls too. Origen (185 – 254 CE) and Saint Augustine of Hippo

declared the Septuagint and Apocrypha to be canonical. The New Testament book of

Hebrews 11:35 references Second Maccabees and Revelation 1:4 & 8:3-4 reference

Tobit 12:15 according to the textbook Christianity for Dummies by Richard

Wagner. The first Gutenberg Bible, printed in 1456, had the Apocrypha in it

without any disclaimers. Jewish History professor Heinrich Graetz stated, “The

Jews did not begin to canonize the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) until after the

Council of Jamnia in 90 CE by which time the Apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had

already transferred all of their Old Testament books, which included the

Apocrypha books of Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc., into Christianity. After 185

CE the Jews began to write down the Talmud and relegate the Hebrew Bible to

secondary status.” The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Bible by James Stuart Bell

& Stan Campbell, Christianity for Dummies by Richard Wagner, God’s Secretaries

by Adam Nicolson and the website fisheaters.com go into further detail on the

topics of the Apocrypha, Septuagint, Ancient Christianity and the original 1611

King James Version Bible.

It is ironic that Protestants, who rely so heavily on “sola scriptura”, have

been using an incomplete Holy Bible for hundreds of years. Not only are

Protestant bibles incomplete but their Old Testaments are flawed because they

rebuke the Greek Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet it was the

Septuagint that was the Holy Bible of the Apostles! The Apostles were

comfortable with the Greek language which is part of the reason they wrote the

first-ever New Testament in Greek.

Alray August 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM

David Jones

King James Bible incomplete the justify “Sola Scriptura”

Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Every Judeo-Christian Bible compiled before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 CE) had the Apocrypha in it – without any “non-canon disclaimers”. These ancient, complete bibles include the Septuagint, Ethiopian Orthodox, Peshitta and Dead Sea scrolls. The Bible Belt, every Christian should know the truth about their scriptures.

Did the Roman Catholic Church add extra books to the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563? The answer is no. In fact it was the Protestant churches that deleted some books from the Holy Bible! Protestants have never answered the following question: If the Vatican added extra books to the Holy Bible in 1545 then how and why did the Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Ukrainian, Ethiopian) Christian churches have the extra books in their Holy Bibles too after the Great Schism of 1054?

A brief history of Britain’s most prestigious Holy Bible version should be given. It contradicts the account told to us by our Protestant brethren. When the authorized King James Bible first premiered in 1611, the “extra Apocrypha/deuterocanonical” books were included in all of the bibles printed by the Cambridge University Press. The Apocrypha books (Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) were sandwiched in between the Old Testament and New Testament in all of the 1611 versions. Eighteen years later, and after the death of King James, the Cambridge University Press began to print some bibles without the Apocrypha because the damned Calvinists requested them! The Calvinists wanted the authorized King James Bible to resemble their unauthorized Geneva Bible. The Calvinist monarch, Oliver Cromwell, briefly ruled England during the 1650s after winning the English Civil War. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell no English printing press included the Apocrypha in the Holy Bible. To the present day it is rare to find a King James Bible, or any Protestant bible, that contains the Apocrypha books. But the Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic churches continue to print their Holy Bibles with the “extra” Apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in them.

Which version of the Holy Bible was quoted from and used by the Apostles of Jesus Christ? The answer is the Septuagint. The Septuagint was written by Hellenistic Jews, in the Greek language, between 299-140 BCE. The original Septuagint was kept in the great library of Alexandria, Egypt. As is explained in the preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed’s The Apocrypha (1959), “But the Apocrypha books were part of the Holy Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books (Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) were all in that version. They passed from it into Latin and the great Latin Vulgate Bible edited by St. Jerome about 405 CE which became the Authorized Bible of Western Europe and England for a thousand years. But St. Jerome found that some books were not in the Hebrew Bible, and so he called them the Apocrypha, the hidden or secret books.”

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek and the Apocrypha is in the Dead Sea scrolls too. Origen (185 – 254 CE) and Saint Augustine of Hippo declared the Septuagint and Apocrypha to be canonical. The New Testament book of Hebrews 11:35 references Second Maccabees and Revelation 1:4 & 8:3-4 reference Tobit 12:15 according to the textbook Christianity for Dummies by Richard Wagner. The first Gutenberg Bible, printed in 1456, had the Apocrypha in it without any disclaimers. Jewish History professor Heinrich Graetz stated, “The Jews did not begin to canonize the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) until after the Council of Jamnia in 90 CE by which time the Apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had
already transferred all of their Old Testament books, which included the Apocrypha books of Second Maccabees, Tobit, etc., into Christianity. After 185 CE the Jews began to write down the Talmud and relegate the Hebrew Bible to secondary status.” The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Bible by James Stuart Bell & Stan Campbell, Christianity for Dummies by Richard Wagner, God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicolson and the website fisheaters.com go into further detail on the topics of the Apocrypha, Septuagint, Ancient Christianity and the original 1611 King James Version Bible.

It is ironic that Protestants, who rely so heavily on “sola scriptura”, have been using an incomplete Holy Bible for hundreds of years. Not only are Protestant bibles incomplete but their Old Testaments are flawed because they rebuke the Greek Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet it was the
Septuagint that was the Holy Bible of the Apostles! The Apostles were comfortable with the Greek language which is part of the reason they wrote the first-ever New Testament in Greek.

Leave a Comment

 

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: