I’ll answer the question albeit in a very concise manner. As to the apocrypha, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with writing the OT. The OT has already been existence even before the time of Christ. It is that OT (Tanach) that Jesus and the apostles quoted during their ministry. It is the Jews who were entrusted with the Word of God during that period before Christ. The Jews do not consider the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals as part of the Tanach, and so shouln’t we. Protestants did not change the NT, we use the same NT books that the RCC uses. There may be accusations that Luther wanted to remove some books in the NT, but the fact remains, that Protestants use the same NT.
But you are so, so wrong it is pitiful!!! You are wrong because you are ignorant of the fact that those seven books
WERE in the Jewish scriptures during the life time of Jesus and the Apostles. The Jewish rabbis in Jerusalem only removed them afterwards. The Ethiopian Jews still have those books in their scriptures as do other Jewish groups in other parts of the world. The christian Old Testament selected for the Bible was the Greek Septuagint not the Hebrew version. The Septuagint contained 46 writings and included the seven disputed books. But don’t take my word for it. Here is what protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the Protestant Bible. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53),
Also, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. Professor at Harvard theological school wrote the following in his 1995 work, *The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited *:
“Although it cannot be proved, it is generally assumed that the Old Testament of the early Church, that included the Apocrypha,23 was the canon of the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria. Since the Law (Charles 1913:2.83-122) and the Prophets had been translated into Greek in Alexandria (between 250 and 150 B.C.E.), it came to be assumed by modern scholars that in Alexandria Jews regarded all literature translated from Hebrew or Aramaic as sacred…This view of an enlarged canon in Alexandria that included the Apocrypha came to be known as the Alexandrian, or Septuagint, canon (Sundberg 1964), explaining how it was that Christianity used a larger canon for its Old Testament than the Hebrew canon.”
He goes on to say that the canon of the Hebrew scriptures was never closed prior to 70 AD. The exact date is unknown but probably between 70 and 135 AD. This was long after the christians had already split from the Jews and accepted the Greek version.
As regards John 6:53, Protestants do eat His body and drink His blood. We do have Holy Communion/The Lord’s Supper. We don’t however take Jesus’ words literally but only symbolically, for Jesus loves to speak in parables, allegories, and the like.
Anyway, The questions are out of the topic of this thread, it was just right for Louemma to not answer them. However, I just answered them to show that we do have answers to those kinds of questions. Contrary to what you claim, we are not doctrinally poor.
Do they? How can you say protestants eat and drink Jesus’ body and blood when none of the protestant denominations claims that their communion is the actual body and blood of Jesus? They all claim their communion is only a symbol of and not the Real Presence.
And Yes Jesus did speak in “parables, allegories, and the like” but He never did so when He said the words, “Truely, truely, I say unto you…” as he does in John 6:53-58:
"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
That is no allegory, my friend. Jesus was being very serious. Jesus may have spoken in parables but He also explained those parables to His disciples. But was He speaking a parable? Notice in verse 60 it says:
"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
and verse 61says:
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” The only explanation Jesus gives is that his words were spirit. That doesn’t mean hypothetical or allegorical. It means spiritually. You see the Jews understood about the manna from heaven that their fathers ate in the dessert. It was real food so they understood Jesus to be speaking about **material **food. But Jesus says he is not speaking of material food. He is speaking of
spiritual food. That is why the only explanation He offers to His disciples is that His words are spirit.
And one more thing the charge against protestantism is not that you are doctrinally poor. The charge is you doctrines are wrong. Big difference.
Let me try to clarify further for Matt and others. A person cannot be saved ONLY if in his mind he knows and is convinced that the RCC is the true church and yet refuses to abide by her teachings and remain in her. Is that correct?
I guess if you were never Catholic you have a chance. But I think the Church says if you were Catholic and then later became unconvinced, then no you’re doomed. That’s at least what I’m reading.
