Deuterocanonical Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter ziapueblo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ziapueblo

Guest
I have a question about the deuterocanonical books. Why did Martin Luther take them out and are there references to these books in the New Testament? Thanks,
 
ziapueblo said:
I have a question about the deuterocanonical books. Why did Martin Luther take them out and are there references to these books in the New Testament? Thanks,
Click to expand...
As to Luther’s motive, he reportedly consulted with 16th century Judaic leaders to determine their then current canon. Why? Other than to attempt to justify, and continue, his separation from the One True Church, one can only guess. Since Christ, Judaism had excised some books from their canon. It is thought that this was done since those books might have been allied with Christian beliefs. Luther also added the German word “allein” (alone) in Romans 3, to justify his “sola scriptura” doctrine. As in, “You are saved by faith alone”, rather than “You are saved by faith”. Of course, Luther’s uninspired and unauthorized molestation of Sacred Scripture has lead to millions of souls being placed in peril, as some branches of Protestantism now teach that baptism is not necessary - directly contradicting Christ in John 3:3-5.

Christ’s peace.
 
ziapueblo;:
Why did Martin Luther take them out
Click to expand...
The only book that can be directly attributed to him removing is one that is not part of the Catholic Canon. He did question their canonicity. [For the record he ALSO did the same thing with several books that Protestants consider to be canonical.]
and are there references to these books in the New Testament? Thanks,
Click to expand...
There are several direct quotes in the NT. Most of the references are allusions to deuterocanonical passages.

xan

jonathon
 
ziapueblo said:
I have a question about the deuterocanonical books. Why did Martin Luther take them out? Thanks,
Click to expand...
You may hear some argue that he didn’t take them out of the bible because he kept them physically in the same binding as the rest of scripture. They will say he simply put them in an index as the apocrophal writings that could be useful to read, but not scripture. IMO, if you call something non-scriptural by your own authority, even if it’s physically in the same binding, you are removing it from the bible.

The books did remain physically in most protestant bibles until the 1800’s.
 
ziapueblo said:
I have a question about the deuterocanonical books. Why did Martin Luther take them out and are there references to these books in the New Testament? Thanks,
Click to expand...
I believe it was an issue with the reference to praying for souls that would thus prove Purgatory correct. Here it is:

“Therefore, it is a holy and beneficial thought to pray on behalf of those who have passed away, so that they may be released from sins.” (2 Maccabees 12:46)
scott1228 said:
Zia:

You may find this helpful:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

On a personal note, hearing the book of Tobit in the readings in Mass has been personally inspiring.

Best wishes,
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a great source.
 
If Maccabees proves pugatory, then it proves that people guilty of idolatry are in purgatory. Because all those who died were carrying false idols with them, under their clothes. There was no repentance, no confession, nothing except death in their sin.

JJ
 
Jolly_Joe said:
If Maccabees proves pugatory, then it proves that people guilty of idolatry are in purgatory. Because all those who died were carrying false idols with them, under their clothes. There was no repentance, no confession, nothing except death in their sin.

JJ
Click to expand...
If, this was true then what would be the point of praying for people who are in an eternal Hell.
 
If Maccabees proves pugatory, then it proves that people guilty of idolatry are in purgatory. Because all those who died were carrying false idols with them, under their clothes. There was no repentance, no confession, nothing except death in their sin.
Click to expand...
Yes, and in my opinion of someone who is a bit agnostic and more of a deist, that proves that God looks at your whole life merits and not at the last deeds in order to pass jugement of somebodys actions.
Lest see, according to some, if you are the murderer of 20 millon people but just before dying you confess that you are a sinner accept JEYZUS in your heart as your personal Lord and Savior you go to straight to Heaven.
But someone who otherwise has lived a righteous life but under the treat of death choose wrongly to put some little idols and died anyways, should go straight to Hell.
That is a a picture of God as a hateful, arbitray and unjust persona, a god I would not workship.
 
Why do the Catholic Church accept these 7 books but reject others which appeared in the Septuagint? (1, 2 Esdras and 3, 4 Maccabees)? How can they decide that their 7 books are inspired and these 4 aren’t? 3 and 4 Esdras were even included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation but later removed by the Church…
 
clarktaylor said:
Why do the Catholic Church accept these 7 books but reject others which appeared in the Septuagint? (1, 2 Esdras and 3, 4 Maccabees)? How can they decide that their 7 books are inspired and these 4 aren’t? 3 and 4 Esdras were even included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation but later removed by the Church…
Click to expand...
Because they deemed them not important for the Bible. You should thank them. If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, you Protestants would not even have the Bible today. Actually you don’t, you have the Bible minus 7 books, that Martin Luther didn’t like.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Because they deemed them not important for the Bible.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with them? And how do the people at the Council of Trent know which books are inspired and which are not? I’m not trying to be flippant, I just want to know how they can tell that, say, 2 Maccabees is inspired and 3 Maccabees isn’t?
holdencaulfield said:
you have the Bible minus 7 books, that Martin Luther didn’t like.
Click to expand...
In that case, aren’t you also missing at least 4 books that the Catholic Church didn’t like? (1&2 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees)
 
clarktaylor;:
Catholic Church didn’t like? (1&2 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees)
Click to expand...
Prayer of Manassas is the fourth book. Unless you consider Psalm 151 to be a separate book. And maybe Psalms 152 - 155?

AFAIK, nobody considers 4 Maccabees canonical or deuterocanonical.

There is also 3 Corinthians which is considered canonical by one of the Orthodox churches.

xan

jonathon
 
Ilroy said:
You may hear some argue that he didn’t take them out of the bible because he kept them physically in the same binding as the rest of scripture. They will say he simply put them in an index as the apocrophal writings that could be useful to read, but not scripture. IMO, if you call something non-scriptural by your own authority, even if it’s physically in the same binding, you are removing it from the bible.

The books did remain physically in most protestant bibles until the 1800’s.
Click to expand...
By that definition, Jerome removed them.

JJ
 
So 2/3 of quotes from the New Testament came from the Septuagint which include the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants do no use the Septuagint but the Hebrew version of the OT. Does this mean that the Protestant OT had to “add” these quotes from the Septuagint into their Bible? Thanks,
 
Well if you have good solid information as to when those books were added and by who’s authrority many scholars would love to talk to you. You are assuming something not in evidence. That the Septuagint was always exactly a certain way.

Strange indeed since things like Codex Sinaiticus contain additional books not found in today’s copies of the Septuagint.

Which brings up the mistaken notion that everything in one’s Bible must be considered authoritative scripture. Certainly a strange conclusion by a bunch of people standing around with Bibles in their hands with lots and lots of nonscripture in them. If your priest quotes from a Bible does that make the maps in back scripture? How about the family geneology in front?

And you did note that not all the quotes are from the Septuagint. Some New Testament quotes are from a text source that would have never included the intertestimentals as scripture.

JJ
 
clarktaylor said:
What was wrong with them? And how do the people at the Council of Trent know which books are inspired and which are not? I’m not trying to be flippant, I just want to know how they can tell that, say, 2 Maccabees is inspired and 3 Maccabees isn’t?
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent didn’t define this, the Council of Nicea did.
In that case, aren’t you also missing at least 4 books that the Catholic Church didn’t like? (1&2 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees)
Click to expand...
No, they aren’t inspired or were deemed not important to be in the Bible. There are many books that were deemed as inspired that were not included in the Bible for various reasons, mostly because they were easy to take out of context or could promote heretical ideas. The Epistle of Barnabas is a great example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top