It is only because your falsehoods are so provocative (cf. Proverbs 18:6) that I respond at all to your refuted reiterations once again. First off,
Luther seperated them by placing them as Deuterocanonical books he didn’t separate them as non scripture, where did you get that idea?
Why not try Luther himself?
Translations of the non-Hebrew OT texts began to appear under Luther’s auspices in 1529, a few translated by him, but others by colleagues. In 1534, a complete Bible was published. The pattern follows the listing given in the 1523 Pentateuch, but the non-Hebrew texts now bear the heading: “Apocrypha: that is, books which are not held equal to Holy Scripture, but which are useful and good to read.” These books are numbered and listed: Judith, Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, Maccabees, sections of Esther, and sections of Daniel. There then follow, not listed and numbered, Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Prayer of Manasseh. 19 With some minor variations, this pattern continues in other Bibles published in Wittenberg during Luther’s lifetime...
About Judith he says: “If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures..” MARTIN LUTHER ON CANON AND APOCRYPHA
Can you see the distinction, and which Luther made with certain other books as well. Yet Luther considered Judith a beautiful book worth reading, and while rejecting such, he could cite such for support, as he did with Sirach and Tobit. But such use does not equate to being classed as wholly inspired Scripture.
And note that I am not defending all of Luther's judgments, but that he had license as to his judgments on what was Scripture or not, as did other RC scholars until Trent's definition on April 8th, 1546 after the death of Luther. (February 8,1546)
It wasn’t exactly Luther’s private oppinion to reject the Deuterocanonical books he made it quite clear that this was the stance he also wanted the Church to adopt.
Which is just another of your bare assertions that you use as arguments, and to the contrary as Luthers says about this book of the Revelation of John which he also rejected as Scripture: "I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment."
While Luther could scornfully cite Catholic acceptance in his contrary judgments, if he was arguing that all should confirm to all his judgments on what was Scripture then he did a poor job of convincing fellow Reformers, for as as your own Dave Armstrong states (Luther's Radical Views on the Biblical Canon) hardly any of whom fully held to his canon.
2 Maccabees does teach praying for the dead, although it doesn’t teach the Latin doctrine of Purgatory it does teach purification after death.
At least you admit 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 actually does not support RC Purgatory, and in fact it is contrary to RC doctrine, and thus it can hardly be a positive support for Purgatory, even if no less than even if no less than Eck thought it was, nor its exclusion can helpful to Reformers.
For as likely explained already, in RC (not EO) theology, Purgatory is only for the elect, those who are certain to be saved, but need to make further expiation for venial, non-mortal sin and attain the level of purification needed to enter RC Heaven. However, those in 2 Mac. 12 died because they were card-carrying (amulet) idolators, which is a moral sin, which excludes one from Purgatory. And the offering that was made for them was in order that they may be in the resurrection (of the just), which those in Purgatory are said to already be assured of.
As for support of purification after death, 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 does not teach that these souls were experiencing postmortem purification, only that prayers and an offering be made for them that they my be reconciled to God, that they might be delivered from sin.
And actually, evangelical theology recognizes purification after death, that of the judgment seat of Christ,, which is the only suffering after this life that the NT clearly speaks of after this life, that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's revelation and disapproval), which one is saved despite the loss of. But which does not occur until the Lord's return and believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) Versus Purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.
But nowhere does 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 teach suffering in purgatory in order to atone for sin and become pure enough to enter Heaven,while wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (
Lk. 23:43 [cf.
2Cor. 12:4;
Rv. 2:7];
Phil 1:23;
2Cor. 5:8 [“we”];
1Cor. 15:51ff';
1Thess. 4:17)
I never said Athanasius didn’t view them as inspired. I said that he viewed them as second class books to the Canonical books and the Protocanon which is fine, he didn’t deny their divine inspiration.
You said "he didn’t view the Deuterocanonical books as I inspired apocrypha either," which to me in my fatigue meant he did not view them as inspired. Sorry for my misunderstanding. However, the fact remains that as said, he said he "set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number," and which, with the exception of Baruch, excludes the Deuteros as Divine.
Martin Luther being a Roman Catholic has to accept all binding Eumenical councils and synods, his rejection of the books at Trent without valid lines of reasoning was heresy and was condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.
What?! How many times does it have to be shown you that there simply was no Ecumenical councils and synods that defined the canon until Trent, and which did so after the death of Luther!
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament)
► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)
►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)
► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291)
► Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” CATHOLIC LIBRARY: The 21 Ecumenical Councils Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki.
► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)
I already demonstrated that the council of Carthage settled the issue of the Biblical Canon long before Trent
.
NO, you did not, as instead it has been abundantly
church "fathers" and the Scriptures ]documented [/url]that in addition to the above, as said, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent!
Protestants are virtually the only body of Churches or sects (as Protestantism isn’t a untied Church) which have removed seven books from the Bible and rejecting many Church synods and councils in the process.
And? Considering that distinctive Catholic doctrines are
not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation, then her other judgments can hardly be said to warrant de facto credibility.
Moreover, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Even until now you guys are still the odd bunch in Christianity, as every other Church whether Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, or Church of the East, all accept these books as inspired which Protestantism denies.
What kind of argument is that? If the issue is Roman authority over the canon, then the EOs - who reject Trent as ecumenical - and others who also do not confirm to the canon Trent, however little, must all be considered to be dissenters along with us, it being only a matter of degrees. Yet btwn the two of us we hold to the canon of Scripture of the greatest antiquity, which is affirmed in Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon.
(The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
If it is your opinion that I’m in error however then that is your opinion, it’s up to people viewing these forums to decide whose in error.
Indeed, and after spending literally more hours typing with my stiff arthritic fingers i will leave it to the judgment of readers, who can see you being refuted time and time again, only to come back like a man with his hand and feet cut off in battle but who comes back for more claiming his shields protected him.
