Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus; Gamecock
...many of the same fathers who reject the “apocrypha” attest to the dueterocanonicals as scripture.

The fact that the early church fathers did not include the deuterocanonicals as part of the "inerrant and infallible" group of scriptures speaks volumes. While there were disagreements with what deuterocanonical books to accept or reject, the early church never accepted them. Neither did the Hebrew fathers. It wasn't included in the original package.

The Council of Trent changed all that by including them. Almost 1,000 years later. One has to wonder what new evidence surface that confirmed they were authentic when 1,000 before hand they said they weren't.

15 posted on 09/12/2013 4:27:28 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: HarleyD; metmom
One has to wonder what new evidence surface that confirmed they were authentic when 1,000 before hand they said they weren't.

Same thing that changed between the Canons of The Council of Orange and Trent.

Widespread corruption and various abuses that triggered The Reformation. When Luther and company called foul Rome, out of pride and greed, pushed back with new errors. And as a result now we have Trent and the Deuterocanonical books.

17 posted on 09/12/2013 5:25:06 PM PDT by Gamecock (Many Atheists take the stand: "There is no God AND I hate Him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: HarleyD

Your history is bunk. Until Luther, scarcely anyone dreamt of compiling the Old Testament without including the deuterocanonicals. The standard OT compilation was the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonicals.


20 posted on 09/12/2013 6:19:04 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson