AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
Deuterocanonical books may have been with the canonical books, but as has been shown, it was not held on par with the canonical books the way Rome decided to rule at Trent.
So if anything there's 2 mistakes nowadays:
1. Newer "protestant" translations leaving the Apocrypha out of their bibles
2. Rome incorrectly putting them on par with canon.
Point 1 is an easier thing to fix.
Neither you, nor any other Protestant on this board, has ever made a convincing defense or case for expunging the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible. It was not Rome elevating these books to be on par with Canon. Trent was a necessary response by the church because of the confusion being caused by the reformers - primarily their treatment of what the church held as Scripture. These books were intermixed throughout the OT without distinction or disclaimer up to and until the reformation. The were relegated to "not equal to Scripture" by the reformers, and sometime in the 1800's Protestants removed them altogether. That is the history.
Why? Because the reformers didn't like the theology these writings support. For example, the practice or thought of praying for those who have passed on from this world. So when someone says they refuse to pray for the dead because it's not "Biblical" we have to ask - according to who?
You didn't read what I wrote. I am not a proponent of "expunging the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible." IN fact I called that one of two mistakes.
Even Trent realized the problem and the vote for the canon was not won by a majority of votes, but by a significant portion of the voters choosing to abstain to allow it to pass.
Your last paragraph is wrong of course. The Reformers actually agreed with the historical view of these books and held that they were significant works that should be used, but were not on part with canon. Rome, likely in order to force an anathema on the Reformers, carved a new path.
I beg to disagree with you that point one is easier to fix, and you conveniently glossed over the FIRST mistake made in this whole issue, namely plucking these 7 books from their historical place intermixed throughout the OT Bible and separating them out into a new section with the disclaimer that these 7 books are not equal to scripture.
Let's look at the Biblical history immediately prior to the printing press and the Reformation through the current day and consider which steps were most harmful:
STEP 0: The Apostolic churches (East & West) discerned which books should be included in or excluded from the Sacred Scriptures. These writings were protected and passed down through the generations for more than a thousand years before we come to the Reformation period. The 7 so-called apocryphal books are included in both the Eastern and Western traditions without scandal (despite the East having a slightly larger collection of accepted writings). These 7 books were not distinguishable from the other OT books, and were scattered throughout the OT. These 7 books were used and referenced significantly by the NT authors and the Church.
FACT: The 7 books were there.
STEP 1: In his translation, your beloved Martin Luther took the extraordinary and novel step of rearranging the OT by plucking each of these 7 books from their historical placement within the OT. He created a new section he titled "Apocrypha" between the OT and NT along with the declaration and disclaimer that these 7 books were not equal to Sacred Scripture. This is something new that had never been done before in the 1500+ years of Church history. With this decision and action, Luther set in motion the events that followed with regard to these 7 books, perhaps unintentionally. However, Luther placed himself and his personal opinions above what had been passed down and received through the Apostolic Church.
FACT: The 7 books were uprooted and moved to a new section w/ the added disclaimer they are not equal to scripture.
STEP 2: The Council of Trent was called to counter the Protestant Reformation and to clarify and specifically address the issues being promulgated by the Reformers including the Biblical Canon and the treatment of the 7 Books. The result of the council was to affirm what the church had always held with regard to the Scripture, and to make no changes to the Biblical canon as received and passed down through the Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church affirmed the canon including the 7 books. The Church made no changes and the Bible the Catholic Church uses today, post Trent, is the exact same as it was for the first 1,000+ years and immediately prior to the Reformation.
FACT: Nothing added. Nothing taken away. Nothing moved. The Catholic Bible was the exact same before the birth of Luther, and after Trent, and is the same today.
STEP 3: "Newer Protestant" translations have completely removed the 7 books from their Bibles altogether. This would have never been possible without the books being grouped between the OT and NT and declared not equal to scripture. A concerted effort was made by the Bible societies in the 1800's to remove the
spurious Apocryphal writings specifically because they alluded to practices that did not align with Reformed theology - like praying to the Saints (Mary) or for the dead. Even then, dozens and dozens of cross references that existed in Protestant NT Bibles have been removed in an effort to eliminate the fact that these 7 books were in fact included in scripture and referenced as scripture.
FACT: The 7 Books were there. Now they are Gone. Of the 2 mistakes you acknowledged you think it was Trent that did the greater harm by changing NOTHING save affirming the OT Canon historically used by the Church including these 7 books? Trent did more harm than the nebulous and unaccountable Bible Societies in the 1800's who completely jettisoned the 7 books including footnotes and cross-references?
Sometimes I feel like we are living in something straight out of Animal Farm or 1984 where people think they can rewrite facts and history to be whatever they want them to be and memory-hole the rest. Respectfully, no amount of nuance, justification, or technicalities can make what has happened to these 7 books acceptable.
The books were there.
Then they were moved.
Now they are gone.
And no Protestant has ever been able to provide and answer or defense for who decided and when, and also by what authority. Instead the typical response is to avoid accepting blame by playing hot potato pointing to other Protestants as the real culprit, or more commonly just throw it back at Catholics and blame Trent.
The historical facts are not up for dispute, and Protestants refuse to address the history:
The 7 books were there.
The 7 books were moved.
The 7 books are gone.
Who decided? When? By what Authority?
