Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wmfights

Luther didn't care for Revelations either - nor Hebrews if I recall correctly. Along with a few from the OT.

I'm curious why his canon is accepted by you?


1,133 posted on 12/12/2006 2:14:47 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies ]


To: D-fendr
I'm curious why his canon is accepted by you?

Didn't Luther recognize his error and put Hebrews and Revelation in the Bible they taught from? Also, I remember on this thread one of the EO posters telling me that the EO were not supportive of Revelations being in the Bible until the 1500's.

It seems that the only question about the Canon revolves around the OT Apocrypha. You might not be aware, but the first authoritative list of what comprised the Canon by an individual using his position of authority was St. Athansius. He did this as Bishop of Alexandria, without direction from Rome. He did include the OT Apocrypha with the citation that "to be read only as devotional literature not as canonical authorities".

Knowing the history helps to explain why Luther would not include the OT Apocrypha.

1,157 posted on 12/12/2006 7:49:01 AM PST by wmfights (Romans 8:37-39)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1133 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson