They quoted from some of those books, but not from all of them. Their silence about Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach is in no way different from their silence about Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Silence is silence.But between Himself and the Apostles, they treated the 39 books in Hebrew as the word of God and quoted only from them.
Then are you suggesting we throw out every Old Testament book that Jesus and his apostles never referenced?Neither Jesus nor His Apostles and gospel writers ever quoted from any of the deuterocanonical books for any reasons including doctrine.
Well a blunder only if the Septuagint collection of books was to be only inspired books.And many copies did not agree with each other suggesting there was no general agreement among the translators as to which books were authoritative. This was a blunder!
No harm if you dont take historical books to be 100 percent accurate or develop any doctrine from them.I figure, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the message of salvation through Christ, what’s the harm?
True, silence proves nothing. However , when definite proof is lacking, you are left with circumstantial evidence to rationally bare (and bear) with.Then are you suggesting we throw out every Old Testament book that Jesus and his apostles never referenced?
First, Luther held opinions based on what he knew about them. He held First Maccabees in very high regard. He praised it.Is there a book by luther that quotes his dislike of maccabees?
2 Macc is different. Luther says, in part:This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel."
It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].
To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.
Where did Jesus state which book He recognized as Scripture?No, but I am saying lets go back to the volume of 39 books Jesus recognized as the word of God.
Completed according to whom, the Jews that rejected Christ? Those who accepted Christ had a somewhat larger OT Canon (the Septuagint).Let’s not add new books to something already completed 400 years earlier.
Actuallty it contradicts nothing in the NT, and fits perfectly with what the Jews believed and what the Christians (Paul, for example) taught, in both OT and NT: that is 1) that a man can be punished for sin after he is forgiven (2Sam 12:13-14); that there is a place or process by which the spirits of just men are made perfect (Heb 12:22-23); that there is a place where a saved man, after he has died, can suffer loss as through fire (1Cor 3:13-15); and that nothing unclean shall enter Heaven (Rev 21:27). Straight from the Scriptures we see the principles of the doctrine on “purgatory” (or whatever you may want to call it).The doctrine of purgatory is an example of what flies right in the face of New Testament thought on the subject of afterlife, but totally contradicts it.
Probably because the only thing novel was the fact that someone bothered to give a name (“purgatory”) to something that was already known to be believed and accepted by the ancient Jews up through Christianity before the Canon was decided, and onward up until the “Reformation”, when the first people actually began to reject it.Why wasn’t purgatory a huge red flag by Catholic leaders in its time?
He didn’t state it… He acted on it. You can always tell what someone believes by what they do, more than what they say.Where did Jesus state which book He recognized as Scripture?
Actually the Jews were divided in Christ day. Some sided with the 400 year old Hebrew bible, while others took the more trendy, Greek bible with added commentary.Completed according to whom, the Jews that rejected Christ? Those who accepted Christ had a somewhat larger OT Canon (the Septuagint).
Okay… well, firstly the 1st. Samuel 12 passage is taken out of it’s context. Purgatory deals with eternity. 1st. Samuel doesn’t at all. I agree to a sowing and reaping process understood here in this temporal world, but there is no doctrine addressing eternity’s issues in 1s. Sam.Actually it contradicts nothing in the NT, and fits perfectly with what the Jews believed and what the Christians (Paul, for example) taught, in both OT and NT: that is 1) that a man can be punished for sin after he is forgiven (2Sam 12:13-14); that there is a place or process by which the spirits of just men are made perfect (Heb 12:22-23); that there is a place where a saved man, after he has died , can suffer loss as through fire (1Cor 3:13-15); and that nothing unclean shall enter Heaven (Rev 21:27). Straight from the Scriptures we see the principles of the doctrine on “purgatory” (or whatever you may want to call it).