Menu Click Down

Pope Benedict XVI leads his Weekly General Audience in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican May 18, 2011. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi (VATICAN - Tags: RELIGION) - RTR2MKKZ


By Tav144

The next time somebody tells you these books were taken out of “our” bible, tell them to go kiss the pope’s ring.

The Apocrypha was rejected because they include such doctrines as:

Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2), Maccabees 12:39-45),
Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7),
Intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and
Intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).

Ultimately, regarding the old testament canon and Apocrypha, the Reformers decided to ignore the use of the Apocrypha at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), which were NOT universal councils with authority to declare these books as canon (they were rather N. African and individual roman church councils), and instead the reformers looked back to the ancient paths (Jeremiah 6:16), solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the jewish Council of Jamnia (90 AD).

Calvin agreed as well to this approach because the Apocrypha supported such heretical doctrines as those listed above. In his “Antidote,” he wrote:

“Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints ; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?”

What is more, these books seem to have some significant historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years old. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

For obvious reasons, the reformers did not view these doctrines that ARE supported in the Apocrypha — as “inspired” and “canonical”, nor even historically trustworthy, while it is obvious the Roman Catholic church chose these doctrines straight out of these writings.

Instead the Reformers relied on the very ones in whose duty it was to safeguard the Scriptures , — the JEWS :

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God .” (Rom. 3:1-2).

Additionally, it was Rabbi Akiva, who headed the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD who said this concerning the Apocryphal writings:

“R. Akiba is reported to have denied a place in the ‘world to come’ to those who read non-canonical books .” , Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 90a.

Obviously the statement itself is not true, but it does clearly show the fact that it was well known that the Apocryphal books (which the Catholic church included in THEIR bible) are NOT considered canon of inspired Scripture by the very ones who were chiefly (before anyone else) ” committed the oracles of God ” BY God Himself.

So who “added or removed” books from the TRUE SCRIPTURES…the Scriptures God committed to the Jews first to safeguard HIS WORD to man? The Catholic Church ADDED the Apocrypha to their Scriptures and then on its OWN authority, formally and universally DECLARED the Apocrypha as CANON at the Council of Trent in 1546, as counter to the Reformation and in response to reformers’ rejection of them as “canon”.

The New Testament never directly quotes any apocryphal book as Scripture with the common designation “it is written.” Often, when people claim that it does, quite a stretch is required to get the references to match the Apocryphal books. At best, they are mere allusions that demonstrate knowledge of the Apocryphal books. And if there are genuine allusions to certain Apocryphal books, this does not mean that the writer believed them to be inspired any more than Paul’s quotation of Aratus (ca. 310–245 B.C.) in Acts 17:28 means that he believed Phaenomena was part of the canon.

Our Scriptures plainly declare that it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were committed. If the Jews said these other books are not canon, why would we follow Rome’s lead in declaring them otherwise?

So do not be deceived into thinking that “books were removed from your protestant bible”. That is not true. The Reformers simply and plainly refused to kiss the pope’s ring and recognize his seal of authority upon them, and instead chose to go to those whom God committed His oracles to. 

Leave a Reply • Free Website Templates - Downlaod Full Themes
ChatClick here to chat!+
Select Category