A mutilated Bible?
Arguably some of the finest Roman Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages rejected the legends and prejudices of the ancient apocryphal books, just like Luther and later Evangelicals agreed--in accord with the Jews, who are after all who wrote them, who rejected these books as canonical in the 1st Century. It wasn't until Trent, 80% of the delegates who were Italian... (and just how representative was that of the Roman Church at that time?), that just because Luther et al. rejected the Apocrypha, made it mandatory.
Just what parts of "Bel and the Dragon", the ridiculous, fanciful and superstitious story of "Tobit," and the rest, do you refer to for any, any at all, important doctrines?
Sorry, I just have to laugh when Romanists mention the Apocrypha. Most have read it about as much as they have read the real Bible...
Snicker, snicker. An argument from a bible believer, that rejects a book from the bible because it is deemed fanciful and ridiculous is very funny. Reminds me of Mr. Jefferson. Makes for a thin bible.
>>Sorry, I just have to laugh when Romanists mention the Apocrypha. Most have read it about as much as they have read the real Bible...<<
Ooo, that’s gonna leave a mark!
We are not Romanists. We are Papists and don’t you forget it. :)
Do you have a list of the Roman Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages that rejected the Deuterocanonicals?
We have theological proofs in the Deutercononicals that are carried to lesser degree in the rest of the Bible; that is the real reason that Luther and his merry band of Scriptural Visigoths went after the affected books. Don’t forget that he wanted to get rid of Revelation and the non Pauline epistles (especially James) as well.