Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CynicalBear

The same clergy that was guided to put together the canon, also included the deuterocanonicals. Obviously they felt that they had value.

Like I have said, Protestants pick and choose what THEY consider to be canonical. They could care less what the venerable Church Fathers took into consideration. Even the 1611 KJV had them included!


1,798 posted on 11/12/2011 10:41:48 AM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1793 | View Replies ]


To: TexConfederate1861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

...The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX)—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha —both of which are called collectively anagignoskomena (things that are read)...


1,800 posted on 11/12/2011 10:49:12 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1798 | View Replies ]

To: TexConfederate1861; metmom; smvoice
>> The same clergy that was guided to put together the canon, also included the deuterocanonicals. Obviously they felt that they had value.<<

The Jewish community and the Hebrew Christians of the New Testament did not use or include the Apocrypha. Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Apocrypha as divine authority. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t include them. Did early Jewish believers use anything other then the writings of the Apostles and the Old Testament? No.

The historian Josephus, who was Jewish, excludes the Apocrypha. “The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all” (Lib. 1, Con. Apion.).

The books in the Apocrypha even include things that have been proven historically inaccurate.

If I remember correctly the Apocrypha was not included until after Trent even in the RCC. It was at Trent that they wanted something to refute the reformation arguments so officially included them to bolster their “doctrinal” teachings so saying they aren’t used for doctrine is weak at best.

I would suggest that it was not the “same clergy” who decided to include them.

1,803 posted on 11/12/2011 11:27:57 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1798 | View Replies ]

To: TexConfederate1861
The same clergy that was guided to put together the canon, also included the deuterocanonicals. Obviously they felt that they had value.

Like I have said, Protestants pick and choose what THEY consider to be canonical. They could care less what the venerable Church Fathers took into consideration. Even the 1611 KJV had them included!

Very good. The whole result of the Reformation is the ability to create one's own theology each morning over cornflakes.

1,819 posted on 11/12/2011 3:43:04 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1798 | 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