Posted on 12/18/2007 1:52:09 PM PST by NYer
So how does a German monk actually, unilaterally remove a book from a millienia-long accepted canon? Well, as they say, there's "safety in numbers". Since 2 Maccabees was part of the Septuagint, along with 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, it was less problematic to take a common denominator - their primary Greek translation - and flush the bunch for the sake of getting rid of 2 Maccabees and, effectively, Purgatory.
What's truly ironic, is that Luther, himself, included the Apocryphal books in his German translations of the Bible. So, until his dust-up with the Magisterium, these books were perfectly acceptable to him. Suddenly, in a fit of "principle", they were bogus members of the canon.
Very strange.
He certainly wrote the Bible, but human beings authored it. Perhaps this is just a semantical error. Otherwise, you're describing the Koran.
...Now, your church may have written the "new testament" . . . but you're welcome to that!
Nah, I'm with you on the author of the Torah ("...For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.") - but we believe that HE is also the author of the 'New Testament'.
Your ignorance is showing.
Human beings "authored" the Na"KH, but G-d Alone wrote the Torah. It was written 974 generations before the Creation of the World, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire. The Torah is the logos, the DNA, the blueprint of the Creation.
In the 26th generation of the world the Torah was given to Israel. G-d dictated it to Moses letter-by-letter, and Moses wrote it down. This is, as you Catholics say, the "ancient and immemorial tradition." Granted that you are just as bad as Protestants in rejecting the Tradition that preserved and interpreted the Bible prior to chr*stianity, but this only means you are more hypocritical than Protestants. AT least they don't attack Jewish Tradition as "doctrines and commandments of men" and then turn around and start defending "apostolic tradition" from that same accusation.
I'm really sorry that so many chr*stians don't have the slightest idea of what Judaism teaches about the Torah. I'm afraid you liberal chr*stians are getting your "Judaism" from liberal "reform" groups. Orthodox Judaism had a perfect-G-d authored book long before islam ever appeared on the scene.
The catholic church is NOT the Catholic church...
It's ludicrous to suggest that God would allow a pagan emperor (Constantine) to be the 2nd head of His body, the universal church...
No one man directs the workings of our church. If our pastor starts preaching on things outside the Word and the deacons/members vote on it he can be dismissed unlike the Pope.
If I wanted democracy, I'd start a country. If I wanted Truth, I'd build it on a system where the Truth does not change by popular vote.
The heart of the issue, is that you do not trust that the SBC is guided by the Holy Spirit, otherwise, you wouldn't have provisions that allow you to "dismiss" or "leave", as a church. It's similar to a prenuptial agreement. Why bother getting married if you're already prepared for a divorce?
What are you talking about? Constantine was never pope.
The term "Catholic Church" was coined in 106 AD by St. Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans...
No one has a problem with the word "Catholic" - as it means "universal". And all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are of the same body of Christ. No matter where they are or who they are ("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house..."). The 'disagreement' arises when the Church of the Roman Empire usurps this name to apply it strictly to themselves.
...Christianity thereby became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
It seems odd when reading Acts, and the Epistles, to imagine the simple, God-fearing churches as having 'evolved' into this creature of the Roman Empire - with its purple robes, legions of officers, giant marble cathedrals, gold, and the such... But maybe that's just me...
I hear ya...I'd be embarrassed too...
Just think, if you missed one mass in the first three years, it'd take 6 years for you to get thru the bible, if you only missed one mass in 6 years...
Um, excuse me but the Roman Catholic Church was established in 1054 A.D. so how can it be that it was 2000 years? LOL
If you say the Orthodox Christian Church then you are correct. The Roman Catholic Church is a spin off of the Orthodox Church.
And the Bible consists of the Hebrew, Greek,Old and New Testament.
It is nice for you that the Catholic Church want to claim this but it simply is not true.
Bede became known as Venerable Bede (Lat.: Beda Venerabilis) soon after his death, but this was not linked to consideration for sainthood by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, his title is believed to come from a mistranslation of the Latin inscription on his tomb in Durham Cathedral, intended to be Here lie the venerable bones of Bede, but wrongly interpreted as here lie the bones of the Venerable Bede.
I recalled (somewhat fuzzily) that the "Venerable" was attached to his name from an early date (he was 7th century); he wasn't canonized until 1899, and the use was pretty well established by then.
I agree with you.
You have an amazing amount of venom. We can discuss this again when you join civilization.
The popular vote as you say is rectified with the Bible, it is the final authority. There is no dissent as long as anything said or taught can be backed up with scripture.
It is not a democracy it is a union of believers that have stock in how they are told to worship when the Bible tells you how, not a man elected by other men.
Christ appointed followers and I do not seem to remember him to have appointed one man as head of the church. He used Peter’s spirituality and faith as an example to form the cornerstone of the church. He started with 12 and then more via the commission and it grew from there.
Why aren't you walking around in sackcloth and celebrating the Lord's day in a clay hut, if the trappings of Rome offends you? God demanded opulence in designing the Ark of the Covenant, didn't He?
So, there were just "the 12"? What about the seventy-two He sent forth? Why were the Apostles priveleged over the rest? What about deacons like Stephen, who had different duties than the Apostles? Then there were presbyters, elders, and bishops. What separated each of these groups was levels of authority. Whether or not you disagree that Peter was the first Pope, this religion "by the people, for the people, and of the people - as long as we all agree with our particular interpretation of the Bible", seems extremely vulnerable to personal interpretation and human error. What if everyone has a different interpretation of Scripture? Does the church dissolve automatically?
Which is why no Catholic believes that, or would ever suggest it.
Even the Ku Klux Klan? They believe in Christ, too. You consider them part of the body you belong to?
The 'disagreement' arises when the Church of the Roman Empire usurps this name to apply it strictly to themselves.
No one else wanted to claim it I suppose. Maybe the Holy Spirit made them do it?
You'd prefer that no one stepped up to the plate and took control of that mess? Are you kidding me?
Okay, I'll play along. Who DID have the right to say what the proper translation was?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.