Why do Protestants deny that this is inspired?

[Love_is_Patient]

Of course it is inspired. But Being inspired doesn’t make something scripture. Thomas A Kemps’ The Imitation of Christ was obviously inspired too but nobody would suggest it was on the same par as Saint Pauls epistle to The Romans.

You can find paasages like Wisdom 2:2-3:3 in Hindu scriptures and among Greek pagan lwritings too but they’re not canon either but further confirm that God didn’t leave people without a witness.

Why isn’t it Scripture?

Love is Patient

 

[pgerpup]

Yes, that’s right, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. Says so right here in my New Oxford Annotated Bible.

 

[East_Anglican]

Nope. We refer to those books as the Deuterocanon, because we believe they are Scripture.

Apocryphal books (for Catholics) include such things as the Gospel of Thomas, which are NOT Scripture.

Love is Patient

Deuterocanon means second cannon. First cannon is where doctrine comes from and second cannon backs it up.

 

[Nine_Two]

The first sentence contradicts the fact that, at least technically, Lutheransim has never “closed” its canon. In your second sentence, I believe there is just cause for Lutherans to rediscover the D-C books, and consider them in the positive way that Luther and others who throughout history questioned their canonicity, but not their value, did.

So, for this Lutheran, the criticism is understood. I can’t and won’t speak for (other) Protestants.

Jon

While I don’t know a whole lot about the Lutheran worldview specifically, I do question that when the term “apocrypha” was a rhetorical tool used by Luther to put stigma on those books.

 

[JonNC]

While I don’t know a whole lot about the Lutheran worldview specifically, I do question that when the term “apocrypha” was a rhetorical tool used by Luther to put stigma on those books.

It may have been, as Luther was never shy about irritating Rome, but he also said about them (the D-C’s), ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’” And this was not remarkable in his time or preceding. Many held that view, and were permitted to.
But in the end, he must have thought highly enough of them to translate and put them in his translation. Had he viewed them as worthless, I suspect he would not have wasted his time.
I just think there is an argument to be made for Lutherans to reconsider their worth.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Allow me to try again.

Wisdom contains a prophecy of Christ.

It is a part of the canon of the Catholic and the canon of the Orthodox, but not of the Protestants.

Why do Protestants deny that it is part of the canon (and hence, inspired), when a) the majority of Christians throughout history have accepted it as canonical and b) it’s a clear prophecy of Christ?

St. Ignatius’ letters have never been part of the Catholic or Orthodox canon, so it’s not a clear comparison.

Love is Patient

Ah…that makes a little more sense.

You are making the argument that the book of Wisdom contains valid prophecy concerning Christ. Therefore it should be considered canonical.

So that raises a couple of questions in my mind.

Is that passage a prophecy concerning Christ? I can understand why you may think it is, but I am thinking in terms of what are the standards concerning prophecy related to the Messiah? When is something a prophecy and when is it not?

Is it sufficient to conclude that because a source has valid prophecies concerning the future Messiah that it must be canonical?

I’m not interested in debating this, but just some questions that come to my mind.

BTW I used the quote of Ignatius as representing something that (1) is orthodox Christian document (2) inspired at least to some extent (3) not considered Scripture by anybody. So logically it is possible for a document to be correct, orthodox, and inspired and at the same time…not Scripture.

 

[Nine_Two]

It may have been, as Luther was never shy about irritating Rome, but he also said about them (the D-C’s), ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’” And this was not remarkable in his time or preceding. Many held that view, and were permitted to.
But in the end, he must have thought highly enough of them to translate and put them in his translation. Had he viewed them as worthless, I suspect he would not have wasted his time.
I just think there is an argument to be made for Lutherans to reconsider their worth.

Jon

I was unaware he held that view of them. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[East_Anglican]

Of course it is inspired. But Being inspired doesn’t make something scripture. Thomas A Kemps’ The Imitation of Christ was obviously inspired too but nobody would suggest it was on the same par as Saint Paul’s epistle to The Romans.

You can find passages like Wisdom 2:2-3:3 in Hindu scriptures and among Greek pagan
writings too but they’re not canon either but further confirm that God didn’t leave people without a witness.

From this I get the reply of

Why isn’t it Scripture?

Love is Patient

The only reason that has been given for it to be included in the main cannon of scripture instead of being Deutrocanon is that is a prophesy about Christ. By this logic all the Hindu scriptures and Greek pagan scriptures that point to Christ should be part of The Holy bible as well.

As Saint Paul used a line from a hymn to Zeus, namely “In him we live and move and have our being” are we to put all the hymns to Greek pagan gods in the Bible too? After all if Paul quoted it and it became part of The Book of Acts which is in The Bible what’s to say all the other stuff can’t be there?

Shall we put the Socratic dialogues about regeneration and dieing being gain in there too?

Maybe all the Nordic stuff about the Norse gods being replaced by one who rises from the dead too?

Is it sufficient to conclude that because a source has valid prophecies concerning the future Messiah that it must be canonical?

Obviously not.

 

[heartwood010]

Allow me to try again.

Wisdom contains a prophecy of Christ.

It is a part of the canon of the Catholic and the canon of the Orthodox, but not of the Protestants.

Why do Protestants deny that it is part of the canon (and hence, inspired), when a) the majority of Christians throughout history have accepted it as canonical and b) it’s a clear prophecy of Christ?

St. Ignatius’ letters have never been part of the Catholic or Orthodox canon, so it’s not a clear comparison.

Love is Patient

I will say, that in my experience as a Baptist, the New Testament was really the only part of the Bible that was studied. The Old Testament was used as historical background, and was taught as the Word, but if it didn’t actually talk about Jesus directly, or how to live Christ-like, we generally didn’t study it.

Granted this was just one church, and I haven’t been Baptist in 25 years, but that is my take on it.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

From this I get the reply of

The only reason that has been given for it to be included in the main cannon of scripture instead of being Deutrocanon is that is a prophesy about Christ. By this logic all the Hindu scriptures and Greek pagan scriptures that point to Christ should be part of The Holy bible as well.

As Saint Paul used a line from a hymn to Zeus, namely “In him we live and move and have our being” are we to put all the hymns to Greek pagan gods in the Bible too? After all if Paul quoted it and it became part of The Book of Acts which is in The Bible what’s to say all the other stuff can’t be there?

Shall we put the Socratic dialogues about regeneration and dieing being gain in there too?

Maybe all the Nordic stuff about the Norse gods being replaced by one who rises from the dead too?

Obviously not.

I seem to have offended you. My apologies.

In another post, I did point out that Wisdom is included in the canon of both the Catholic and Orthodox. I could also point out that it was accepted by many Jews as Scripture.

To my mind, that makes it different than Hindu or Greek or Socratic or Norse writings - since for the majority of Christians (today and throughout history) do accept it as Scripture, as well as did many Jews.

That is my logic, which of course, you are free to disagree with.

Love is Patient

 

[Cr8ton]

I don’t know if “Protestants” deny it. I think most non catholic christians never have reason to ask about it.

And, as inspiring as it may be, it really doesn’t make a point to the main thing that ought to be holding you all together anyway.

The very sad thing, is Jesus wished for you all to be one.

And, even if you don’t like the reasons why (at this point in history) it became unbearable to be one,

you all must ask yourselves why your holy catholic church became so unbearable for any division to even be thought of.

I think the real question this brings up is, The Word of God remains the same, those who read and seek God will be given wisdom, knowledge and understanding. How then, is it that because others felt the Word of God was being guided by something other than that which aligned with God Himself, they would branch off in order to protect what is in fact God’s Holy Word. How is it then, that this is taken as a “separation” of the one church when in fact all who believe on the name of Jesus and accept Him into their lives as Lord and Savior are the children of God and part of His church/kingdom/family?

I believe the ones who could very well be separating themselves from other believers (the church) are the ones who cling to the idea that anyone outside of their set of doctrinal beliefs cannot be saved and/or are not under grace? I believe doctrine is very important and there is only one way God intended it…the truth. But to draw the line at the point of attributing one self to a denomination is out of reason. Please enlighten me.

 

[East_Anglican]

I seem to have offended you. My apologies.

No I think I misunderstood you.

In another post, I did point out that Wisdom is included in the canon of both the Catholic and Orthodox. I could also point out that it was accepted by many Jews as Scripture.

Wisdom is still Deutrocanon to RC, EO and some Anglicans though. It is the second canon and not the first canon. You don’t base doctrine on the second canon because it is not as trustworthy as the first canon. Some great truths are suported by it and we can obtain much wisdom from it but it is not what we are to base doctrine on.

To my mind, that makes it different than Hindu or Greek or Socratic or Norse writings - since for the majority of Christians (today and throughout history) do accept it as Scripture, as well as did many Jews.

That is my logic, which of course, you are free to disagree with.

Love is Patient

Many Christians bellieve the Earth is only 6000 years old this does not mean the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

No I think I misunderstood you.

Wisdom is still Deutrocanon to RC, EO and some Anglicans though. It is the second canon and not the first canon. You don’t base doctrine on the second canon because it is not as trustworthy as the first canon.Some great truths are suported by it and we can obtain much wisdom from it but it is not what we are to base doctrine on.

Is that an Anglican belief? Because I’ve never heard that as a Catholic. Any Orthodox want to speak about that point?

Many Christians bellieve the Earth is only 6000 years old this does not mean the Earth is 6000 years old.

Many Christians don’t believe in the Real Presence - and Catholics, (most?) Anglicans and Orthodox certainly do.

Many Christians also doubted that Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter, etc, were Scripture. But they yielded to the wisdom of the Church in determining what was Scripture.

Love is Patient

 

[benidict]

“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace.

Wisdom 2:2-3:3​

---

I’m just curious. It seems pretty much a straightforward prophecy of Jesus.

Love is Patient

honestly my friend. i dont think many protestants have read this,seeing how many of them have never been exposed to the book of wisdom. i never even knew this passage existed as a protestant. really cant fault them. we were taught that the apocropha existed when i was growing up. but never any more than that. other than they were considered not necessary, and filled with stories that at best were human inventions. also i would think if pre millinialist read the macabees, they would see that many of daniels prophecies came to pass in the days of antiochus epiphanus. and that they do not point to the latter days so much as that period. it would clear up much confusion and bring our seperated brothers and sisters closer, if they did have the apocropha. God bless you and yours.