Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Vicomte13
See you (maybe) tonight)

It is also true that this was THE SPECIFIC THING that Luther really was alarmed about in the so-called "Apocrypha". But what of it?

What of it? It's one thing to follow Apostolic traditions as to what is or is not Scripture. It's quite another to deliberately rip pieces out of Scripture, because one finds them offensive to one's own personally invented novelties.

23 posted on 01/29/2007 9:21:57 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: ArrogantBustard

Well, ok.
I myself am not going to defend Luther's move on the Deuterocanonica, because I think that it was in error.

The biggest reason I think it was unsound is because Jesus' stories and parables follow parables and references to Sirach and Wisdom more than any other texts, other that the Torah and certain of the Prophets (esp. Isaiah), whom he quotes directly...and, at least in the case of the Torah, often corrects. It seems to me a poor thing to discard the very texts that make a whole lot more of Jesus' teachings directly related to the Bible. Jesus certainly knew and used his Sirach and his Wisdom, and having those books available pulls a lot more of what Jesus said and did from being new teaching to be refinements on old Scripture.

Since we don't NEED a Bible to be God's children, we only NEED grace and God's love, with the Sacraments being the most important approaches to grace, with the Bible as an aid to faith and learning but not strictly necessary at all, I think having the most complete Bible is better, especially given Jesus' allusions to those specific parts that were pulled out. He was God, so he ought to know.

All that said, everything that NEEDS to be known was said and done by Jesus and the Apostles, and the whole necessary faith is in the Gospels, so the rest is merely clarifying data and interesting. Besides, the Eastern Church has 3 and 4 Maccabbees while the Western Church never did. This wasn't fatal to unity before, and need not be fatal to unity now. The West demanded the filioque of the East, but never demanded they drop 3 and 4 Maccabbees.

This is a subject worth fighting about in the context of what authority IS and who says.
But if one wants to know what God wants of us, the words and deeds of Jesus are sufficient, from a textual standpoint.


171 posted on 01/29/2007 1:23:53 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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