Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143314 | ||
Hi, Colin... The 66 books of the bible we are familiar with were considered canonical. Protestantism didn't really change the attitude toward the Apocryphal books, they were generally viewed the same way by everyone. Three things marked a change for the Protestants: (1) the belief that sound doctrine could not be derived from any but the 66, and (2) the belief that everyone should and ought to study the bible for themselves, and (3) the invention of the printing press. With the printing press, inexpensive bibles became available. Every Protestants wanted a copy. They were all wanting to know what God had for them to believe. But 87 books was a lot heftier than the 66 in which they were really interested. So they started carrying around just the 66. (The first King James edition of the bible, however, included the Apocrypha.) It wasn't considered that the Apocryphal books were bad, per se. Just that they weren't any more inspired than other books written by mere men. However, the boom in the printing industry was a bane to Rome. Some of the practices (as has been noted in other posts) that brought a lot of money to Rome were at stake, and needed bolstering. Furthermore, Rome needed a basis by which to excommunicate those who were, in their eyes, heretics. The adoption of the Apocryphal books into the canon accomplished both things in one fell blow. At the time, I don't think it meant a great deal to the average lay-Catholic. In fact, the council of Trent was held between 1545 and 1663. It took so many sessions because they could barely get enough interest from the clergy to have what we would think of as a quorum. This makes me think they were having a hard time drumming up interest. Until this time, councils issued fairly short statements. This one was pretty voluminous since it had to conclusively deal with the canon issue, refute the five solas on which Protestantism was based, and re-institute few other Roman practices, nailing the lid to the heretics' coffins -- or, perhaps, hammering the necessary stakes into ground. (In the same period, the Jesuit order was founded to implement the objectives of Rome in the eradication of Protestantism.) It is interesting to read these documents. You can go to the Roman Catholic web site and read English copies of them. (Curiously, they seem to be the oldest set of documents kept in the archive, last time I looked.) If you are Protestant -- even Eastern Orthodox -- you can read the grounds on which you are officially anathematized by Rome. (I sure hope I never become anathematized by Pflugerville, Texas! That would be *really* scary!) I hope this little excursion into history helps. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143361 | ||
Doc I think you have it a little backwards. Read this But it is to the Reformers that we are indebted for the habit of using Apocrypha for a collection of books appended to the Old Testament and generally up to 1827 appended to every printed English Bible. Bodenstein of Carlstadt, usually called Carlstadt (died 1541), an early Reformer, though Luther's bitter personal opponent, was the first modern scholar to define "Apocrypha" quite clearly as writings excluded from the canon, whether or not the true authors of the books are known, in this, going back to Jerome's position. The adjective "apocryphal" came to have among Protestants more and more a disparaging sense. Protestantism was in its very essence the religion of a book, and Protestants would be sure to see to it that the sacred volume on which they based their religion, including the reforms they introduced, contained no book but those which in their opinion had the strongest claims to be regarded as authoritative. In the eastern and western churches under the influence of the Greek (Septuagint) and Latin (Vulgate) versions the books of the Apocrypha formed an integral part of the canon and were scattered throughout the Old Testament, they being placed generally near books with which they have affinity. Even Protestant Bibles up to 1827 included the Apocrypha, but as one collection of distinct writings at the end of the Old Testament. It will be seen from what has been said that notwithstanding the favorable attitude toward it of the eastern and western churches, from the earliest times, our Apocrypha was regarded with more or less suspicion, and the suspicion would be strengthened by the general antagonism toward it. In the Middle Ages, under the influence of Reuchlin (died 1532) -- great scholar and Reformer -- Hebrew came to be studied and the Old Testament read in its original language. The fact that the Apocrypha is absent from the Hebrew canon must have had some influence on the minds of the Reformers. Moreover in the Apocrypha there are parts inconsistent with Protestant principles, as for example the doctrines of prayers for the dead, the intercession of the saints, etc. The Jews in the early Christian centuries had really two Bibles: (1) There was the Hebrew Bible which does not include the Apocrypha, and which circulated in Palestine and Babylon; (2) there was the Greek version (Septuagint) used by Greek-speaking Jews everywhere. Until in quite early times, instigated by the use made of it by Christians against themselves, the Jews condemned this version and made the Hebrew canon their Bible, thus rejecting the books of the Apocrypha from their list of canonical writings, and departing from the custom of Christian churches which continued with isolated remonstrances to make the Greek Old Testament canon, with which the Vulgate agrees almost completely, their standard. It is known that the Reformers were careful students of the Bible, and that in Old Testament matters they were the pupils of Jewish scholars -- there were no other competent teachers of Hebrew. It might therefore have been expected that the Old Testament canon of the Reformers would agree in extent with that of the Jews and not with that of the Greek and Latin Christians. Notwithstanding the doubt which Ryle (Canon of the Old Testament, 156) casts on the matter, all the evidence goes to show that the Septuagint and therefore the other great Greek versions included the Apocrypha from the first onward.—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia EdB |
||||||
3 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143364 | ||
Ed, Sounds to me like they have it both ways. Read this. "Deutero-canonical, books: A term sometimes used to designate certain books, which by the Council of Trent were included in the Old Testament, but which the Protestant churches designated as apocryphal (see APOCRYPHA), and also certain books of the New Testament which for a long time were not accepted by the whole church as Scripture. Webster says the term pertains to 'a second Canon or ecclesiastical writing of inferior authority,' and the history of these books shows that they were all at times regarded by a part of the church as being inferior to the others and some of them are so regarded today. This second Canon includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclusiasticus, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees of the Old Testament, and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation of the New Testament." --International Standard Bible Encyclopedia In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143366 | ||
The point I was making was the books the Catholic church which includes what we call the Apocrypha were actually included in the Septuagint which was produced 200 years before Christ. Certainly not merely in answer to the reformation which didn't occur until 1700 years later. However the Reformation did open the can of worms once again incidently that can of worms was never really closed as the Apocryphia was discussed in nearly every generation of the church age. EdB |
||||||
5 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143368 | ||
Brother Ed, I understand. That would be true for some of the Apocryphal books, but not all of them. Nevertheless, the fact that they were included in the Septuagint does not necessarily mean that the books were canonical to the Jews. (After all, the Septuagint was only written by order of a gentile, Alexander the Great, and not without resistence.) The Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD produced a canon (probably in reaction to questions brought up by Christians). This canon did not contain any of the Apocryphal books. What it does contain are all the books we usually think of as the Old Testament. In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143372 | ||
I'm not defending the Apocrypha I'm simply stating a fact that it was part of the Christian Bible from the beginning until the 1800's. This to me shoots down the belief that it was only included by Catholics to make the reformers mad or inspite of the Reformation. EdB |
||||||
7 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143379 | ||
Dear Brother Ed, Oh, I see! Yes, I agree. The intent of the Council of Trent was not to "make the Reformers mad" or to spite them. No, it was the means by which the Roman church could legally and definitively deal with Protestantism and Protestants. The very act of describing historic events necessitates the distillation of salient facts and a certain degree of interpretation regarding the intentions of the people involved. When we say, for example, that "Hitler was the cause of World War Two," we are making a true statement, although it may be an oversimplification. Interpreting the intents of the Council of Trent is a much easier in that we have the decrees themselves which state their intent. The Catholic Encyclopedia boils down all the rhetoric with "Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants." The decree states that it allowed the Church to "express their detestation of and anathematize all the heresies that have been condemned by the sacred canons and general councils, and especially by this same Synod." It seems to have dealt with every single traditional practice with which the Protestants took issue. So I agree, the intent was not to make anyone angry or insult them in some way. Excuse me for my lack of clarity. In Him, Doc PS I've lost count, but did you know the phrase "let him be anathema" appears about 200 times in the decree itself? http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html |
||||||
8 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143381 | ||
Doc Boy you are the master of the twist! The Catholic church was under attack by the Reformation. They came together to codify their position. Did that insult the Reformers, probably. Had the Reformers insulted Rome, probably. The fact remains the Apocrypha the one and only issue I'm addressing was in fact in every Bible before the Reformation and was in fact in most Bibles 300 years after the Reformation. I still say to make the statement the Catholics only included the Apocrypha in their Bible to irritate Rome is nonesense. Now twist that any way you like. EdB |
||||||