Where in the bible does it say that Maccabees is not scriptural?

[jimmy]

I was just thinking and I was reading Church Militants story. I saw the mention of the ‘three pillars of the reformation(Luther, Calvin, and Zwingley)’ and I thought its funny that they are the pillars rather than scripture. The question in the title of this thread popped into my head in relation to sola scriptura. I imediately thought, the reformers said sola scriptura is the pillar of the faith yet they rejected certain books of the bible without any scriptural proof. I just thought that was an amazing coincidence. I have seen and used the arguement that there is no list of scriptural books in the bible and therefore it is necessary to have the Church. But the irony of it all. How could they remove books from the bible if the scriptures are the sole authority?

 

[Lazerlike42]

It all comes down to this, which is a fact that is not typically taught in history class and you have to research on your own to realize it - the reformers, especially Luther (and less so Calvin) didn’t come up with their beliefs due to Scripture, they came up with Scripture due to their beliefs. Luther already knew what he wanted to believe, and he just used his idea of Sola Scriptura as an excuse to disagree with 1500 years of contrary teaching. He got rid of the deuterocanon because they said things that disagreed with his beliefs. He threw out books of the Bible that didn’t match his beliefs. He also threw out James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation for a few years before his followers realized that this was sortof a problem and they put them back in. It’s no surprise, seeing as these books just happen to teach things like salvation by faith+works, the wrongness of private interpretation, the insufficiency of Scripture, and infused righteousness.

 

[jimmy]

Lazerlike42:

It all comes down to this, which is a fact that is not typically taught in history class and you have to research on your own to realize it - the reformers, especially Luther (and less so Calvin) didn’t come up with their beliefs due to Scripture, they came up with Scripture due to their beliefs. Luther already knew what he wanted to believe, and he just used his idea of Sola Scriptura as an excuse to disagree with 1500 years of contrary teaching. He got rid of the deuterocanon because they said things that disagreed with his beliefs. He threw out books of the Bible that didn’t match his beliefs. He also threw out James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation for a few years before his followers realized that this was sortof a problem and they put them back in. It’s no surprise, seeing as these books just happen to teach things like salvation by faith+works, the wrongness of private interpretation, the insufficiency of Scripture, and infused righteousness.

Yes, that is the one thing you can draw from this. They must have had preconcieved ideas about what scripture should be. They knew what they wanted to believe and what they did not want to believe. Could there be any other conclusion?

 

[Nicene]

He also threw out James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation for a few years before his followers realized that this was sortof a problem and they put them back in. It’s no surprise, seeing as these books just happen to teach things like salvation by faith+works, the wrongness of private interpretation, the insufficiency of Scripture, and infused righteousness.

I’m not sure he threw them out, at least that I am aware of. I do know he didn’t like them and wanted to remove them but the other reformers objected. I’m fairly certain he was never successful at removing them.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mtr01]

jimmy:

Yes, that is the one thing you can draw from this. They must have had preconcieved ideas about what scripture should be. They knew what they wanted to believe and what they did not want to believe. Could there be any other conclusion?

In a sense you’re right, however it’s a little more complicated. The canon of the Old Testament adopted by Luther and the other “Reformers” was actually the Hebrew canon as defined at the Council of Jamnia c. 90 AD. In a nutshell, a group of Jewish scholars are claimed to have decided that any Scripture that was not originally written in Hebrew was to be rejected (they were really mostly interested in declaring the Christian Scriptures (written in Greek) to be non-canonical). By doing so, they also rejected the Old Testament books written in Greek that were part of the Septuagint (LXX) version of the scriptures. These are the books that are referred to as the Deuterocanon, which the Church has always considered canonical (there is a great deal of evidence that Jesus himself, not to mention the Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint).

The question arises as to why Luther adopted the canon as defined by a Jewish council that held no authority over the Christian Church. I believe it is not a coincidence that those books he rejected are ones that gave support to Catholic doctrine.

Here’s more information of the Council of Jamnia:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Since he was relying on the Jewish canon, I am surprised that he did not throw out the entire New Testament.

 

[jimmy]

mtr01:

In a sense you’re right, however it’s a little more complicated. The canon of the Old Testament adopted by Luther and the other “Reformers” was actually the Hebrew canon as defined at the Council of Jamnia c. 90 AD. In a nutshell, a group of Jewish scholars are claimed to have decided that any Scripture that was not originally written in Hebrew was to be rejected (they were really mostly interested in declaring the Christian Scriptures (written in Greek) to be non-canonical). By doing so, they also rejected the Old Testament books written in Greek that were part of the Septuagint (LXX) version of the scriptures. These are the books that are referred to as the Deuterocanon, which the Church has always considered canonical (there is a great deal of evidence that Jesus himself, not to mention the Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint).

The question arises as to why Luther adopted the canon as defined by a Jewish council that held no authority over the Christian Church. I believe it is not a coincidence that those books he rejected are ones that gave support to Catholic doctrine.

Here’s more information of the Council of Jamnia:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Yes, I know about Jamna but Jamna does not explain why he also rejected James, 2Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Apocalypse. It is probably more accurate to say that he did not like what those books said to start with. It seems to me that he just used Jamna as an excuse or a justification.

Why would you follow a Jewish council in 100AD but not follow a Christian council in 325AD(according to Luther Nicea was not inspired)?

 

[mtr01]

Joe Kelley:

Since he was relying on the Jewish canon, I am surprised that he did not throw out the entire New Testament.

Well, he tried to throw out about half…