Immaculate Conception of Mary

[Good_Fella]

Pardon me, they blindly follow the Church’s decision on which books belong in scripture, EXCEPT those books that Luther decided to reject. Still, why all the other books? And why take Luther or anyone else at their word as if it were Gospel truth? The point still stands…

The early Protestant “reformers” of the 16th century objected to the seven books
they removed from the Bible because of the doctrinal teachings of these books. For
instance, the Second Book of Macabees contains the teaching of Purgatory and of
prayers for the dead (Cf. 12:39-46). The Book of Tobias teaches the importance of
good works in the eyes of God. The teachings of this book could not be reconciled
with the Protestant doctrine of ‘sola fide’. The Book of Judith and parts of the Book
of Esther were too Marian in usage by the Catholic Church. Protestants call these
books ‘apocryphal’ meaning “uninspired”.

These seven books were excluded from the Hebrew text by the Jews in Palestine.
Parts of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Wisdom were included. The
foreign influence of the Greek Jews in these books could not be tolerated. So
these additional seven books came to the Catholic Church with the ‘Septuagint’,
a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint version
of the Old Testament, these additional books were given equal rank with the other
books, as they are in the Catholic Bible. Protestants contend that since these books
were not included in the Hebrew text by the Jews of Palestine, they could not have
been inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they overlook the historical political tensions
that influenced these Jews in rejecting the additional books.

The Catholic Church has always considered these seven books as inspired along with
the other books which have been retained by Protestants. Ironically, the Apostles
and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. Of the three hundred and
fifty Old Testament quotations found in the NT, about three hundred are taken from
the Septuagint instead of from the Hebrew text. Some of the NT writers made use of the
additional books themselves. The Book of Wisdom appears to have been St. Paul’s
favourite OT Book; the Epistle of St.James shows a strong affinity with Ecclesiastics,
another Book rejected by Protestants. (Luther was seriously considering discarding
James’ Epistles because of its emphasis on good works.) The oldest Christian Bibles
in existence contain the additional books. The early Protestants even tampered with NT
book translations to accommodate their strange doctrines.

Pax vobiscum
Good fella

 

[exoflare]

The early Protestant “reformers” of the 16th century objected to the seven books
they removed from the Bible because of the doctrinal teachings of these books. For
instance, the Second Book of Macabees contains the teaching of Purgatory and of
prayers for the dead (Cf. 12:39-46). The Book of Tobias teaches the importance of
good works in the eyes of God. The teachings of this book could not be reconciled
with the Protestant doctrine of ‘sola fide’. The Book of Judith and parts of the Book
of Esther were too Marian in usage by the Catholic Church. Protestants call these
books ‘apocryphal’ meaning “uninspired”.

These seven books were excluded from the Hebrew text by the Jews in Palestine.
Parts of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Wisdom were included. The
foreign influence of the Greek Jews in these books could not be tolerated. So
these additional seven books came to the Catholic Church with the ‘Septuagint’,
a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint version
of the Old Testament, these additional books were given equal rank with the other
books, as they are in the Catholic Bible. Protestants contend that since these books
were not included in the Hebrew text by the Jews of Palestine, they could not have
been inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they overlook the historical political tensions
that influenced these Jews in rejecting the additional books.

The Catholic Church has always considered these seven books as inspired along with
the other books which have been retained by Protestants. Ironically, the Apostles
and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. Of the three hundred and
fifty Old Testament quotations found in the NT, about three hundred are taken from
the Septuagint instead of from the Hebrew text. Some of the NT writers made use of the
additional books themselves. The Book of Wisdom appears to have been St. Paul’s
favourite OT Book; the Epistle of St.James shows a strong affinity with Ecclesiastics,
another Book rejected by Protestants. (Luther was seriously considering discarding
James’ Epistles because of its emphasis on good works.) The oldest Christian Bibles
in existence contain the additional books. The early Protestants even tampered with NT
book translations to accommodate their strange doctrines.

Pax vobiscum
Good fella

Yeah, I know why the original “reformers” rejected those books, but the question still stands - why do Protestants today just take their word for it that those “reformers” had the authority to decide what did or did not belong in scripture? And by what authority do they accept that the other books of the Bible are inspired, if they disagree with every Church council that defined scripture (since all those councils approved of the so-called “apocrypha”)?

I just wish that Protestants would actually think about their beliefs objectively sometimes…

 

[Good_Fella]

The divinity of Christ was defined by Scripture before the Council of Nicea. In fact, the writers of the New Testament show that the divinity of the Messiah could be found in the Old Testament.

The scriptures provide no definitions. Jesus alluded to his divinity or implied he was divine. Jesus never called himself God the Son; although Peter appears to have been graced with the knowledge of Christ’s divinity when he professed, “You are the Son of God.” Nor is the title “God” ever used in the NT when referring to the Holy Spirit. Before the Council of Nicea in 325, twenty heresies emerged pertaining to the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the scriptures do not tell us that the Holy Spirit is a third divine person. The creators of these heresies cited the scriptures to support their false doctrines. Without a solemn definition provided by the Church council, one could easily have espoused one of these heresies, for the scriptural support behind the reasoning of the heretics was rather convincing. The Bible alone is not sufficient.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella