Martin Luther

[JonNC]

=po18guy;11619899]To save JonNC from yet another potential fit of apoplexy, I will note here that Luther never removed any books from his bible. What he did, was to believe and declare that the seven (Deuterocanonical) books were efficacious for reading, but were not inspired by God. Thus, he made the unilateral move of segregating them from the other books and placed them in between the two testaments in the bible which bears his name. Calvin thought likewise. Either Trent was too late, or the rebels left the Church too soon. Had they stuck around, they would have seen that the books were once again examined and declared for all time to be inspired. But, by that time, the “reformers” had so thoroughly rejected the Catholic Church that Trent made no difference.

Thanks for looking out for my apoplexy.

Yes, if Luther had lived… or the numerous others who question some or one or all of them had lived. As you know, I’m not convinced Luther was right in his opinion, just that he was allowed to hold it.

The problem: unless they trust the Catholic Church on this issue, protestants have absolutely no way of knowing if those books are God’s word or not.

This is absolutely correct, if we are speaking in terms of the early, undivided Church. There is no doubt that without the OHCAC we have no knowledge of scripture.

Being completely fractured, they cannot convene a council.

I suspect no more likely than a council of the CC and EO.

Even if they somehow managed this, they would possess no authority to make any such declaration (just as there was no authority to declare them non-inspired).

Correct. A truly ecumenical council needs the bishops and patriarchs.

The Band-Aid for this problem was to assign the insulting term “apocrypha” to them and, for the most part, ignore them. The man-made term “inter-testamental period” was later coined to cover this inexplicable lack of scripture in the immediate pre-Christian era.

I don’t know if “hidden” was intended to be insulting, but I can understand why some would take it that way, and my problem with the term is it places the DC’s into a category, at least linguistically, with other books that have never been considered canon, at least in the west. Here’s one non-Catholic who finds the term Deuterocanon reasonable.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I suspect no more likely than a council of the CC and EO.

The EO, who just coincidentally, also have the Deuterocanonical books and always have. However, talks are continuing, if not accelerating between the two liturgically near-identical Churches.

I don’t know if “hidden” was intended to be insulting, but I can understand why some would take it that way, and my problem with the term is it places the DC’s into a category, at least linguistically, with other books that have never been considered canon, at least in the west. Here’s one non-Catholic who finds the term Deuterocanon reasonable. Jon

Well, if Deuteronomy (second law) is reasonable, why not Deuterocanon? As well, there is really nothing hidden in those books, unless one cannot see the moral lessons within them. Look at 2 Maccabees: the liberation of Israel from an oppressive pagan king who enforced the death penalty if Jews practiced their faith; the restoration of Judaism to Israel in time for Christ to be born under the law so as to fulfill the law; the purification and re-dedication of the Temple so that Mary and Joseph could present Jesus in an undefiled Temple; the teaching of the resurrection; the teaching of eternal life; the holiness of the priestly practice of offering prayers for the dead so that they might be loosed from their sin. All of this 120 +/- years before Christ! If God did not inspire those subjects to be written about, then who did?

2 Maccabees tells of the purification and re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem; the re-lighting of the temple lights in what initiated the Jewish holy day that is celebrated to this day - Hanukkah! During the rise of the early Christian Church, the remnant of the Pharisees ruled that 2 Maccabees was essentually too Christian due to its themes, as well as being based on a work that was originally written in Greek. However, in rejecting it, Judaism ever since has had no scriptural record of the holy day Hanukkah which they alone celebrate. Now, that’s ironic.