It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Now you may argue that God ordained that the bible be without error. But this is contradicted by the fact the Martin Luther changed the canon.
If the bible itself cannot be without error, then why did Martin Luther have to throw out books?
Then it means the bible canon cannot be without error. Humans can change it too. This means the faith has to be preserved by human elements: a physical authority if you will
The Books were Never Included in the Jewish Scripture, and so shouldn't be in ours!
This is simply false. Starting circa 200 BC a group of 72 Jewish Rabbis translated the OT scripture into Greek, which consisted of 46 books. This "Septuagint" (Lt. Seventy) was written during a period of time when the "Writings" portion of the Old Testament Canon still being decided. The writing of this great work took time, but by the time it was finished, it contained not only the traditional Torah and Prophet texts, but also the now authoritative copies of the Jewish writings, including works written in Greek and written after the Hellenist conquest of Jerusalem. It was only after the Christians started using the Septuagint that the Jews deleted 7 books (the ones not in Hebrew) in an attempt to secure their own identity and distinguish themselves from Christians.
Catholics Added the Books to the Bible.
We could counter and say that "protestants" REMOVED books from the Bible. The fact is that all the books in the Catholic Old Testament appeared in the Septuagint. The OT canon was set, albeit somewhat unofficially, by the end of the 4th century by Bishops such as Irenaeus and Athanasius, including during councils. The Pope, the highest authority of the Catholic Church, ordered the books kept in Bible in the 5th Century, and the issue was permanently settled at Trent in the mid 16th century. The Church has supported these books from the beginning of its very existence.
The Apocrypha shouldn't be included, because they're not quoted in the NT.
Just because they're not quoted, doesn't mean they're not authoritative. Many of the common Old Testament books are not quoted directly in the NT Scripture as well. These include Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Furthermore, there ARE allusions to the Apocrypha in the NT. Consider comparing the following verses as examples: 1) Rom 1:20-29and Wisdom 13:5,8 ; 14:24,27 2) 2 Cor 5: 1,4 and Wisdom 9:15 3) Jas 1:19 and Sirach 5:11.
In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints. They are granted for specific good works and prayers.
Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church. More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.
Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).
Finally modern Protestants are doing things like saying hell is temporary or doesn't exist because they do not believe extra-biblical things like the idea that second death is complete separation from God. Some may even come to ideas that the trinity is baloney because it is not directly mentioned but merely referenced in the bible. When Catholics point out things like how the gospel of John references mortal and venial sin or things like how Mary will always be called blessed and is the mother of all Christians Protestants just shrug it off. Now the same thing is happening to you because you sawed off your own legs by stating that scripture alone should be accepted and not extra-biblical tradition.
Originally posted by 547000
You forgot the word 'alone' which I disagree with.
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 19-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)
I see the word "Reformation" and it makes me think the purpose was to reform the Church, not divide it.
The Church needed reform, and did reform. We should be one Church now, no?
The splitting from the church gave legitimacy to every other group who wanted to go their own way. Now we have umptyleben denominations.
On another note, after over a millenium of using the Bible as is, wasn't it a little grandiose to think that one man, or one small group of men could make those sweeping changes?
HAHA! How can they be alone if there are 5 of them?
I don't believe that mankind has to continually inform god of its shortcomings in order to gain salvation,