₦airaland Forum

Now, since it has been shown that the apocryphal
books were a late addition to the canon which
had not previously been mandated until Trent, the
next logical question is: Why were these books
added? To answer this question, we must
understand the nature of the Council at Trent,
why it was gathered, and what its purpose was.
First and foremost, Trent was a Catholic reaction
to the Protestant Reformation, which was at that
time exploding across Europe. The original
impetus for Martin Luther's challenge and
eventual break with the Catholic religion was the
many abuses which went on inside Catholicism,
the most offensive to Luther initially being the
sale of indulgences. This sale, in which the laity
were told that every time a coin fell into the
coffer, a soul was released from purgatory, was
cynically being used as a fundraiser to pay for the
erection of the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Luther began his attempts at reform by
attacking this corruption. As time progressed, the
Protestant challenge intensified and began to
address a whole range of Roman Catholic
dogmas and practices which had no Scriptural
support from either the Hebrew canon nor the
New Testament. The Council at Trent sought to
rectify this matter, not by acquiescing to Biblical
reform, but rather through attempting to "reform"
the Bible to provide support for such dogmas as
purgatory, prayers for the dead, and salvation
through good works. Hence, the elevation of some
apocryphal books from the status of marginally
interesting ecclesial books to that of "infallibly
decreed" canon was effected.

It should be noted that in the above, I said that
some apocryphal books were elevated. It is
interesting to observe that Trent only canonised
some of the larger body of apocryphal books
which had been known to the early church. It is
suspicious that the certain books which were
elevated were those which had contained
passages in support of the disputed Catholic
dogmas. Other apocryphal books, many enjoying
as much of a potential claim to canonicity as
those approved by Trent (such as I and II Esdras,
the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151), were
excluded, presumably because they did not offer
the support which Rome needed. Another issue
which may have factored into the exclusion of
those certain books is that these were accepted
as canon by the Orthodox religious bodies of the
East, and Rome may have wanted to both
differentiate itself from the Eastern Catholic wing,
as well as to manifest its presumed authority
apart from the decisions of the other major
Catholic body. Giesler and Nix provide a succinct
summation:


"For some fifteen hundred years the Apocrypha
was not accepted as canonical by the people of
God. Then, in 1546, just 29 years after Luther
posted his 95 Theses, the Council of Trent
elevated the Apocrypha, or rather the part of it
that supported the council's position, to the level
of inspired Scripture."


Thus we should recognise as politically motivated
the decision of the Council of Trent to recognise
the apocryphal books presently found in the
Catholic versions of the Bible. The change was
effected primarily for the purpose of attempting to
cut the legs out from under the Reformation
attacks on the various Biblically unsupported
dogmas. By arrogating to itself the authority to
change God's Word, the Roman religion sought
unsuccessfully to stifle the power with which the
Reformation was shaking Europe. The Reformers
simply ignored the change, and refused to accept
the new canon list as revised in 1546, thus
following a long line of Christian bodies which had
existed outside of Roman Catholicism since that
religion's inception with Constantine. The
Reformers followed the tradition of adherence to
the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament which
was held to by the main body of early patristic
writers. This tradition was held by the dissenting
bodies of the Middle Ages (such as the
Waldensians, the Paulicians, the Bogomils, etc.) It
was held by John Wycliff in his 14th century
translation of the Latin Vulgate into English, when
he carefully followed Jerome's lead in delineating
the Apocrypha apart from the true canon. Finally,
as seen above, this tradition found support from
many prominent Roman Catholic voices as well.


salc, italo, chukwudi

Ukutsgp:
it better to shut up, than to say what u dnt know. how do u know that the first bible contains 73 books? martin luther came and removed books? u must be a joke. if the first kjv contains the apocrypha, who removed it? is it martin luther too?

If you don't know these popular facts that even kindergarten kids can easily sing as song, it will be a waste of time engaging you. Go back and study well and then come back. You've been too immersed in another man's thought that you refuse to research things for yourself.

SalC:
If you don't know these popular facts that even kindergarten kids can easily sing as song, it will be a waste of time engaging you. Go back and study well and then come back. You've been too immersed in another man's thought that you refuse to research things for yourself.

the worst thing is that, u guys don't even know 'pin' about the canonisation of the books in the bible and the spurious apocrypha, yet u guys keep bragging and criticizing me that i'm doing copy and paste.

Instead of u to sit down and read and be informed, u keep ranting and displaying your ignorance.
U guys just thought that everybody will swallow those lies that your pope or whatever have been spreading for a long time now, but u guys failed.

The truth is always bitter. That was why u guys always want to cover it up neatly.

I am nt dumb as others who gullibly accept those falsehood pepetrated by the rcc. I know all about rcc. The origin and when all those doctrines that were unscriptural were welcomed into the church and many more. I have read all that in books and also on the net.

It is only a gullible person that will be fooled by those your unadulterated lies.

Ukutsgp:
the worst thing is that, u guys don't even know 'pin' about the canonisation of the books in the bible and the spurious apocrypha, yet u guys keep bragging and criticizing me that i'm doing copy and paste.

Instead of u to sit down and read and be informed, u keep ranting and displaying your ignorance.
U guys just thought that everybody will swallow those lies that your pope or whatever have been spreading for a long time now, but u guys failed.

The truth is always bitter. That was why u guys always want to cover it up neatly.

I am nt dumb as others who gullibly accept those falsehood pepetrated by the rcc. I know all about rcc. The origin and when all those doctrines that were unscriptural were welcomed into the church and many more. I have read all that in books and also on the net.

It is only a gullible person that will be fooled by those your unadulterated lies.

Are you malvis2012's brother?

You guys can lie in the face of truth

JackBizzle:


Are you malvis2012's brother?

You guys can lie in the face of truth

i'm not lying, believe me.

we are just brothers in the lord.

Forever the word of God is settled. No matter what rcc do or say.

they have all left. good they understand.