Protestants can We clear something up here?

In the words of Protestant Septuagint scholar Sir Lancelot Benton:

The veneration with which the Jews had treated this [Septuagint] (as it is shown in the case of [Jewish historians] Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them [i.e., in Christian apologetics]: hence they decried the [Septuagint] version, and sought to deprive it of any authority.[10]

What are the classic Protestant arguments against the seven deuterocanonical books? Their major objection is that the deuterocanonicals contain doctrines and practices, such as the doctrine of purgatory and praying for the dead, that are irreconcilable with authentic Scripture. This objection, of course, begs the question. If the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then those doctrines and practices are not opposed to Scripture but part of Scripture. Another objection is that the deuterocanonical books “contain nothing prophetic.” This is clearly proved false by comparing Wisdom 1:16-2:1 and 2:12-24 to Matthew’s passion account, especially Matthew 27:40-43.

Many Protestants also argue that, because neither Jesus nor His apostles quote the deuterocanonical books, they should be left out of the Bible. This claim ignores that Jesus nor His apostles do not quote Ecclesiastes, Esther or the Song of Songs, nor even mention them in the New Testament; yet Protestants accept these books. Furthermore, the New Testament quotes and refers to many non-canonical books, like pagan poetry quoted by Paul and Jewish stories referred to by Jude, which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Scripture. Clearly New Testament quotation, or the lack thereof, cannot be a reliable indicator of Old Testament canonicity. (This also begs the question of which books belong in the New Testament and which do not.)

Korban, my old correspondent and Friend in Jesus,

Is this really an issue that is so important? The Protestant movement broke away from ROMAN Catholicism (we are all the "catholic" Church) almost 500 years ago; there are bound to be differences in detail, but there's much more that we have in common, which we should build on, and not let differences keep us apart.

When anyone asks my religion, I answer "Christian" - not Anglican, RC, Methodist or whatever. I will never call myself a ROMAN Catholic, because there are doctrines in that Church that I cannot accept as being true or right; however that does not mean that I think there is anything wrong with someone who cannot see what I see as inconsistencies.

Although I normally worship in an Anglican Church if I can, any Christian Church is fine if my "first choice" is not available (though personally, I'm not too comfortable when there's a lot of hands raised in the air all of the time!!) and have celebrated Easter with the Roman Catholics in Saudi Arabia and been with Evangelicals in UAE. So I consider myself a Christian first, and an Anglican as an "aside".

Thanks for bringing this difference to my attention though; the next time that I am in our local Christian Bookstore, I'll get an "RC" Bible and read the "outlawed" books for myself, and let God who is in my heart tell me and Amanda if they are His words.

May OUR God be with you all.

Stu

No problem with any of that, but then i think it's more a question of finding divine inspiration from whatever source works, so you may not be comfortable with the reason i agree with you. I've found Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom to be good, but Bel And The Dragon seems completely pointless to me - no offence. Then again, i completely reject 2 Peter as of any value because it's pseudonymous, and if the very title of a book is a lie, it doesn't bode well for the rest.

Among documents from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) is one entitled “Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum, in Latin). Paragraph 22 of this document says: “Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful . . . the word of God should be available at all times.”

More important than these human sources, however, is the encouragement found in the Bible itself to read the Word of God. Open your Bible and locate the second letter of the apostle Paul to Timothy, chapter three, verses 16 and 17. According to the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible, these verses read: “All scripture is inspired by God and can profitably be used for teaching, for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be holy. This is how the man who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.”

Many Catholics have taken this encouragement and have begun reading the Word of God. But others have been slow to respond. Roman Catholic Bible translator Monsignor Ronald A. Knox expressed his sorrow at this: “In my experience, the laity’s attitude towards the Bible is one of blank indifference, varied now and again by one of puzzled hostility.” But why is this true?

Because indifference to Bible reading permeates the Catholic clergy. Monsignor Knox continues: “When I used to go round preaching a good deal, and would ask the P[arish] P[riest] for a Bible to verify my text from, there was generally an ominous pause of twenty minutes or so before he returned, banging the leaves of the sacred volume and visibly blowing on the top. The new wine of the gospel, you felt, was kept in strangely cobwebby bottles.” Of course, if the Catholic clergy are indifferent to the Bible, most of the laity will follow suit.

Anglicans, of direction, have faith in the "3-legged stool" of Richard Hooker: Scripture, the custom of the Church, and Human reason, all of which ought to artwork mutually in team spirit. of direction, as a Roman Catholic you're able to say that the Anglican reverence for custom is "incorrect... basically because of the fact". it is exciting that, on my own between the Reformed faiths, Anglicans selection with Roman Catholics no longer over the meaning or magnitude of Scripture, yet over the character of the Catholic Christian custom.

No it's more like the protestants took books out when they broke away from the one true faith the catholic church.The sacrament of Holy Orders was institute by Jesus Christ that is why we has confession and the forgiveness of sin by a priest. Please stop talking about things you do not understand.

Thoughts: This is not a question.

The KJV Bible, translated in the mid 1600's, does not contain the books you refer to.

If you want to refuse God's Word and pray for dead people, fine. Just don't expect to go to Heaven.

Look mate, it's straight forward. Someone dies and as soon as their heart stops beating, the person's soul is released from it's clay shell (body). If that person had received Jesus (Salvation) they soul goes to heaven. If they had refused God's Word, and not been saved, the soul goes straight to hell. Period.

There is no place called Purgatory, it's an invention of the Catholics to prise money out of the deceased, in the false belief that prayers can be used to help the soul.

I am not a protestant because I am a non Catholic Christian.

My thought is that this isn't a question at all. To add insult to injury, you're attacking a straw man.

Is this actually a question or a lecture? it's far to clever for me