There were seven books of the bible that Martain Luther King and others claimed were not inspired by God. The books Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch. Does anyone know the reasons we desided these were not inspired by God?
2006-08-17 06:29:15 · 7 answers · asked by michiganvoter 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The books in question are not inspired by God, even according to the Catholic Church itself. Look at the top of the page at the beginning of each of the books.
It will say Historical document, none of the other books of the bible are prelabeled in this manner.
There is no dispute with these books. IT is not why the Puritans and the quakers ran away to america. They ran to seek freedom to worhsip God directly from the source. The bible, not from some other humans take on the bible.
God tells us to worship Him and him alone, not other men. The Catholic Church requires that you worship your pope, and that is biblically wrong. He is not a Holy Father, for there is only one Spiritual Father, and that is our creator, Father GOD. That is the true division (not protest)
2006-08-17 06:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by cindy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Protestants protest the Catholic church because they did not allow for divorce.
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics. The author of the article in the web site is obviously Catholic, and supports that the Myths explain why protestants do not accept these books.
I think it goes back to the formation of the Catholic church really, when Constantinople corrupted all text and Christianity for his own purpose of control.
2006-08-17 13:34:34 · answer #2 · answered by BuyTheSeaProperty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, it was Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King.
Second, I know that 2 Maccabees has a verse telling us that it a holy thing to pray for the dead, so that they may be loosed from their sins.
This is a clear and direct reference to purgatory -- a belief which the "reformers" didn't accept. So they needed to get that book out of the Bible.
As for the other six, I'm not sure.
The 7 books you mention ARE inspired. They are not "non-inspired." They had always been in the Bible, and always should be in the Bible.
2006-08-17 13:36:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Martin Luther started the Lutherans by nailing a note to a Cathedral in Germany, because amongst other thing, he was angry at the corruption of the Church, whose Popes in those days used to have thousands of prostitutes on the Vatican payroll and used to have gay orgies and allsorts of activities that seem more like satanistic activities to most Christians. I don't know the details of the books that he changed. Protestantism was started in England by Henry VIII because he wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn't let him. Its interesting how many popes were corrupt in the old days, the pope at the time ofking Henry VIII was carried in on a stretcher when he was made pope because he had such bad anal ulcerations from being bummed! Truth as far as I know, and I'm Catholic and tolerant of homosexuals so I'm not trying to have a go at anyone.
2006-08-17 13:48:27 · answer #4 · answered by TOM M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Martin Luther, not King. The seven books known as the Apocrypha were never considered quite as important as the rest of the Bible. They were not written in Hebrew, and so are not part of the Hebrew scriptures, and the Jews as well as pre-protestant Christians regarded them as valuable but of lower status. When the printing press allowed mass distribution of the Bible, the Apocrypha was often omitted to make the Bible smaller. The founders of protestantism actually considered the Apocrypha as valuable, but not as important as the rest of the Bible. Catholics tend to agree, for that matter, but give them enough importance to include them in the printed Bible.
2006-08-17 13:48:41 · answer #5 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason they decided the Book of Enoch shouldn't be included, even though Jews for centuries knew of this book, because it told truths the church didn't like. Enoch had a lot of apocalyptic stuff, and they didn't like that. They would have gotten rid of Revelation, but that threat in the last paragraph took care of that.
2006-08-17 13:37:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Corruption in the church.
And "we" did not decide, a few men did.
2006-08-17 13:34:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋