[boatbums]

I'd think they would want to distance themselves from claiming books that teach against their own dogmas as part of the Divinely-inspired Holy Scripture. For example, in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, the passage where Catholics think to find Scriptural warrant for "praying for the dead" and thus "Purgatory", fail to realize that this passage disproves those very dogmas. The dead men in the passage were found clinging to idols of their false gods. Now, that would be considered a "mortal sin" to Catholics, would it not? So how is it that people who die in mortal sin can be "prayed" out of Hell? They wouldn't have gone to Purgatory with that kind of sin so must have been in hell.

My thinking on this whole Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal place in Scripture and the arguments used to demand their acceptance, only proves that the Council of Trent did this to dispute the claims of the Reformation about the Roman Catholic Church adding false doctrine to Christianity not affirmed by Scripture and, more importantly to them, remove the reliability of and recognition of the infallible nature of Holy Scripture. That is why people today don't trust the Bible, think it's made up of fairy tales or trust more in the "Church" to be the infallible authority over and above Holy Scripture from God. And we know EXACTLY where that kind of thinking originated.

[CynicalBear]

It’s beyond me how otherwise intelligent people would take the words of a writing that obviously has inaccuracies and errors and think it’s the infallible words of an infallible God. I think it’s sad to watch as people try to defend using those obviously erroneous books.