The Cannon a.k.a. the Lost Books

[tits]

Does anyone want to discuss this?

[twilly]

tits said:

Does anyone want to discuss this?

Hey, Tittus!

What "canon" do your refer to "a.k.a."....also know as.... "the Lost Books"?...or what "Lost Books" do you refer to...also know as...."the canon"?

[tits]

I offer this discussion because I have often wondered why the Council chose those writings and omitted others. For example, my Protestant bible does not contain Tobit, Judith, 1& 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch that are probably in your Catholic bible.

I have not read any of these thoroughly but do find that Maccabees and the works of Josephus are often cited along with other ancient (historical nonreligious) artifacts to describe the 450 years of Jerusalem's history between Nehemiah and the Gospels.

I have listened to and read some of the works by Han Hanegraaff (The Bible Answer Man) and R.C. Sprouls on the subject. Their knowledge of biblical social history and things cited in other references makes me really curious as to what these "lost books" say (or did not) that caused them to be excluded. However, Hanegraaff did answer one caller sometime ago with the basic "it don't mean noth'n" statement. "The thing to remember is that the books we do have are sufficient and have been so, to prove that Jesus is the Son of God."

www.equip.org/free/DM708.pdf (Hanegraaff's organization, this is a Catholic funded organization) This is also a writing he has offered on the Canon.

www.ligonier.org/ (R.C. Sprouls is perhaps the most influential historical sociologist that I have read. He seems to have a finger tip knowledge of philosophy as well as historical influences of who, what, when, and where.)

Jude, is this answer sufficient?

The "don't mean noth'm" expression is one that I heard years and years ago while in the service. Basically, it means that no matter how confusing or terrible, it doesn't really make any difference.

[jfree]

Those books are not considered inspired works, not even by the Jews. They were not even part of the Catholic bible for a long time, Pope Gregory the great, I looked it up before, he too considered them uninspired, they were simply considered history books not biblical record. They are called the apocrypha books.

What is the Apocrypha?
The term "apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal--including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as "deuterocanonical" books. In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha."
etext.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html


www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

What is the Apocrypha anyway?

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*"Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."



Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic Church Fathers believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

[tits]

Jude, that is the kind of discussion I long for. Could you cite your sources?

Of what you wrote, I am still curious concerning Maccabees. I have not ever been able to throughly read Josephus, my sick ol'mind just cannot follow the logic. However, the sociologist in me wants to gain a greater understanding of the inter testament years.

For example, Herod the Great was the child of the famous Cleopatra and therefore could not have been a Jew as all Jews must prove their lineage through their mother before they can claim to be of the Tribe of their father. This was true when Moses gave them and is true today.

Why then did Herod, a non-Jew and Roman puppet choose to build the Temple?

What official sacred things remained after the destruction of Zerubabbel's temple? Was the Temple worship and were sacrafices accepted by God since the official tools were absent?

Is there any record at all of God's Glory resettling on the Temple after Ezekiel saw it fly away. Yes, Ezekiel later saw it return in a dream, but there is no record of the Glory returning. There it could be argued that the Herod temple was just another government building. Why then did Jesus fight so hard and weep so deeply for the Temple and Jerusalem?

The only other mention of the Glory after Ezekiel 10 is when it enveloped James, John, and Peter during the transfiguration. This could be conjectured as the ordination of Christ.

Like I told Twill, I am a full a 52 year old full time clinical psychology student and my time is limited. Please forgive me if I do not spend much time discussing for the next few weeks.

Thanks for sharing, your knowledge is just what I have been look'n for.

Dave

[MrDoublel]

Tittus, have you read Don't know much about the Bible? It may fill in some gaps for you too. Reading this tells me I really need to pick up the Bible and read it regularly. Something I have long neglected to do.

[jfree]

I think you got me confused w/the poster we were discussing on the other thread, it's Jfree not Jude

Here is some interesting info on Harod, he wasn't the son of Cleopatra of Egyptian monarchy, but had a son a woman named Cleopatra who was from Jerusalem.

The Rise of Herod the Great

Herod as a young man was one of the rising stars among the Romans. Though half Jewish and half Edomite, or Idumean, he came from wealthy, aristocratic ruling families. Very early on, he was friends with the most powerful of the Roman elite personalities. Herod will play a crucial role in the very opening books of the New Testament, called the Gospels. Some in his family will continue to rule even as shadow figures until the very end of the New Testament. Herod is vitally important for understanding the Olivet Discourse. It is the temple Herod built that is the scenic backdrop for the prophecies of Jesus that tell of the final stages of world history.

But Christ also said something tragic would happen in Jerusalem within about four decades after His death and resurrection. Despite the beautiful buildings of the temple that were the legacy of Herod, Christ predicted that this marvelous structure would be torn down stone by stone. When thinking of the Olivet Discourse, one must muse on the temple. And when thinking about this magnificent structure constructed for the Jewish people, one is reminded of Herod. But how did he actually begin his career? And how did he become the one to build one of the most splendid structures in the history of architecture up to that time? Even more puzzling, what will be his purpose in spending such great effort on such an edifice? And by the time of Jesus, why will the Jewish people, and even the disciples, be so proud of the temple that was built by a religious impostor and madman?

As already pointed out, this young aristocrat Herod was a rising star who, in God’s providence, was placed by His sovereignty at the right place, at the right time. Herod’s father Antipater had been governor of Judea. In 48 BC, when Julius Caesar had defeated Pompey, he chose Antipater’s two sons Phasael and Herod to inherit the throne of Judea. Yet before things could fall into place, Herod’s brother Phasael committed suicide. But more Roman intrigue followed and it was not until Mark Anthony, in 40 BC, persuaded the Roman Senate to confirm Herod finally as king of Judea.

Many of the Jewish people and the orthodox priests were appalled. Herod is not of the kingly house of David. And, everyone could see his ambitions were purely political with Roman interests in view. His reign was a violation of all the religious instincts of the masses. He was clever, unscrupulous and ambitious. But as he grew older, he no longer attempted to hide his cruelty. He suppressed insurrection with total severity. Yet he never indulged in religious persecution except at the birth of Christ.

The title “the Great” must be applied to him carefully. Being so evil, one could argue he does not deserve the title. Though he was a mad genius of sorts, he is still considered a master builder, a supreme architect, a superb engineer, and a student of human nature and a manipulator of people for his own purposes. Summarizing his life, Gilbert writes:

Herod ruled for 33 years, an ally and friend of the Romans but loathed and feared by his Jewish subjects. He was a cruel and evil despot who stopped at nothing to fulfill his insane desire for power and prestige. After Herod murdered three of his sons and many others, including his wife Mariamne, when he felt even remotely threatened. The Emperor Augustus commented, “It were better to be such a man’s swine than his son.” Evidence of Herod’s megalomania can be seen today in the remains of his huge building program. This included the new seaport of Caesarea, a chain of fortresses (e.g. Masada), the most magnificent palace in the Middle East, and even embellishments to the Temple in Jerusalem (the Western Wall he had constructed still stands))12

In the middle of his reign (25–13 BC) Herod was able to do what he wanted. He was wealthy and secure, devoted to Hellenizing the Jews and going about constructing great buildings. In 25 BC, in honor of Caesar Augustus, he built for the Greek games in Jerusalem a theater, an amphitheater, a hippodrome. He built the seacoast city of Caesarea. To the north, in cities with large Greek populations, he constructed temples to Augustus. His generosity reached even outside of Palestine to the island of Rhodes and even the city of Athens with pet projects.

He built an impregnable retreat palace and fortress on top of the great Dead Sea butte Masada since his fear of the Jews was so great. History records the palace was constructed because Herod feared the Jews would depose him and put on the throne one of the house of David, more specifically, the Messiah!

Herod died about one year after the birth of Jesus in misery and great suffering. He had either hardening of the arteries, cancer, or he was afflicted with some loathsome sexual disease. When some fanatics found out he was dying, they attempted to remove the golden eagle, symbol of paganism, from the gable of the great Jerusalem temple built by Herod. He had them burned alive. Nearing the end, he had all the leaders of Jerusalem assembled in the hippodrome so that upon his death, they would be killed and the nation would have to mourn them instead of rejoicing at his demise. With great suffering, and five days after he had his son Antipater put to death, Herod was gone.

The Romans knew how great was the task of ruling the Jews. They agreed to what happened next. Harod’s sons Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip divided the nation. Archelaus ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumea. Antipas took Galilee and Perea, with Philip presiding over Batania, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, areas roughly north and east of the Galilee.

Archelaus and Antipas were sons of Herod’s wife Malthace and Philip was born to Cleopatra, a woman from Jerusalem. Archelaus was as cruel as his father and after reigning just nine years, Augustus had him banished among the Germans in Vienne.

From 6 BC until around 44 AD, Judea had Roman governors called procurators. Because of continual revolt, the Romans figured no one could control the Jews except a Roman. An exception to this is a brief period when king Herod Agrippa I ruled the entire land by the request of the new Caesar Caligula. But procurators again returned to power from around 47–59 AD, during much of the ministry of the apostle Paul. The most well known, whom he encountered, were Felix and Festus. Herod Agrippa II was, however, allowed to be king of Galilee and Perea from around 49 AD and on.

Why did the Romans have such a tight grip on the Jews through Herod? Because the children of Israel lived on the small land bridge that tied much of the world of the Romans together. Palestine was the hub of the wheel, the crossroads militarily and commercially. Depending on which way one was traveling, it was the gateway into one of three continents, Africa, Europe, or the sub-continent of India and then on to the Far East. Whoever controlled Palestine, controlled the land and sea trade routes to both these near and far off places.

How awesome of God to settle His people the Jews in such a strategic spot on earth! He reminded them in the Old Testament that if they trusted Him they would be protected. But He warned, if they turned their backs on His care, they would be run over by the more powerful nations.

However, in God’s providence there was a hidden strategy afoot. As the Jews migrated out of the land when under persecution or captivity, they took with them their testimony of the true God of the universe. The Scriptures also went with them. In time, wherever they ended up, synagogues of worship and study were established. Step at a time, many Gentiles in other lands learned to trust the true God revealed in the Jewish Bible. They believed the promises of a coming king and Savior. They made pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime to the great temple in Jerusalem. Thousands of Gentile and Jewish pilgrims were there when Christ died and forty days after when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples during Pentecost. When the visitors went back home, the testimony of what they saw and heard convicted thousands that Israel’s king had died, come back from the dead, and is now in glory with the Father! The Gospel began to spread forth from the temple in Jerusalem to parts known and unknown!

In His sovereignty, God used Roman law, its promotion of peace, its government, the roads and sea routes, to facilitate the spread of the Good News of Jesus !

Archelaus

Born around 22 BC, he ruled after the death of his father Herod from 4 BC to 6 AD. Some say Archelaus got off to a bad start as king. Before he left Jerusalem to contest his father’s final will, with great terror he put down a temple uprising during Passover by sending in soldiers, killing some 3,000 pilgrims. And when he was in Rome, another revolt broke out at Pentecost against Caesar’s procurator Sabinus that spread throughout Judea, Galilee and Perea.

Archelaus made a lot of personal mistakes that may have fanned further unrest. For example, he divorced his wife Mariamne and married Glaphyra, daughter of King Archelaus of Cappadocia. She was the former wife of Alexander, Herod’s son and Archelaus’s half-brother. This was seen as too much by the elders and the people.

Because he was such a failure as a rule, his brothers Antipas and Philip complained to Rome to have him removed. He was banished to Gaul. His brothers continued their reign over certain territories while the area controlled by Archelaus was made an imperial province.

Philip the Tetrarch

Born the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem around 21 BC, he was made ruler over the northern territory of Palestine. His area of control included Batanea, Paneas, and Iturea with mainly Syrian and Greek citizens. This is why he is the only Herodian to have the emperor’s as well as his own face on coins.

Philip rebuilt the city of Paneas which is near the source of the Jordan river. He renamed the city Caesarea Philippi in honor of the Roman emperor and to distinguish it from the city of Caesarea located on the coast. He also rebuilt Bethsaida which is located in the area where the Jordan flows into the lake of Galilee. It is at this location where Jesus would heal the blind man (Mk. 8:22–26) and feed the 5,000 (Lu. 9:10).

It was Philip who married Herodias’s daughter Salome, whose dance brought on the killing of John the Baptist (Mt. 14:3–12; Mk. 6:17–29; Lu. 3:19–20).

Philip was not a schemer like his brothers. He ruled with tranquility and peace from around 4 BC to 34 AD. When he died the emperor Tiberius annexed his territory to Syria. When Caligula began his rule in 37 AD, Philip’s former area of control was given to Herod Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.

Herod Antipas

Born around 20 BC, Antipas was the younger brother of Archelaus. He was made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and ruled from around 4 BC to 39 AD. These areas were where John the Baptist and Christ ministered the most.

Antipas rebuilt the city of Sepphoris around 8–10 AD, the largest town in the Galilee area and capital of his territories until he built the lake city of Tiberias. Since Sepphoris is only about 4 miles from Nazareth, some have speculated that Joseph, Mary’s husband, may have worked there as a carpenter during its reconstruction.

Herod Antipas is best known for his imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mr. 14:3–12; Mk. 6:17–29). As the account is given, when traveling to Rome in 29 AD, he visited Herod Philip who lived on the Palestine coast. There he fell in love with his niece as well as his brother’s wife, Herodias. She agrees to marry him when he comes back from Rome, if he divorces his wife.

After marrying Herodias, John the Baptist publicly criticizes him for marrying his brother’s wife. Antipas immediately threw John into prison. Herodias, at the right time, arranged for a banquet that she could use in getting rid of John. When Herodias’s daughter dances before Antipas, he promises her by oath that she can have anything she wants, up to half of his kingdom. Salome asks for the John’s head. Antipas is sorry for his rash promise but grants the request. John was beheaded around 31–32 AD.

Following John’s death, Antipas hears of Christ’s ministry and thinks He is the prophet resurrected (Mt. 14:1–2; Mk. 6:14–16; Lu. 9:7–9). He wants to see Jesus but the Lord leaves his territory. In Christ’s final trip to Jerusalem just before His crucifixion, some Pharisees warned Him that Antipas desired His death (Lu. 13:31–33). Christ instructed them to tell “that fox” that He would continue His work of casting out demons and healing for a while longer. Finally, the Lord is given a hearing before Antipas during His trials in Jerusalem (Lu. 23:6–12). Pilate sent Christ to him because He was from the Galilean territory of Antipas. Antipas sent Jesus back to Pilate without any comments.

www.conservativeonline.org/journals/03_10_journal/1999v3n10_id04.htm

[jfree]

Josephus himself considered the Apocrypha uninspired works as well.

Perhaps Jesus wept because the destruction of the temple marked the beginning of the destruction of Isreal and the turning of the Jews away from Him the Messiah.

As to the Glory returning to the temple, perhaps the point was the Holy Spirit resides now not in a temple, as there is no holiest of holies in Christianity, but in followers of Christ instead.

[tits]

I had read much of that before but you did a great job summarizing.

I cannot find any confirmation that any of the Herods could prove their "Jewishness". As you so wonderfully wrote, they were there primarily for political reasons.

Thanks for the clarification on Cleopatra. I had misunderstood that Antipater had courted Cleopatra around the time of Julius. Basically Antipater was a great military leader in league with Julius and was richly rewarded for his efforts.

"As already pointed out, this young aristocrat Herod was a rising star who, in God’s providence, was placed by His sovereignty at the right place, at the right time. Herod’s father Antipater had been governor of Judea. In 48 BC, when Julius Caesar had defeated Pompey, he chose Antipater’s two sons Phasael and Herod to inherit the throne of Judea. Yet before things could fall into place, Herod’s brother Phasael committed suicide. But more Roman intrigue followed and it was not until Mark Anthony, in 40 BC, persuaded the Roman Senate to confirm Herod finally as king of Judea."

Were the Pharisees and the Chiapas friends with the Herodians? Or was their an uneasy truce between these two sects. The Pharisees as the ruling class of intelligencia of the Levitical law as memorized in the Misrash and the Herodians as the wealthy ruling class Jews. I have envisioned this to be similar to Hollywood and the religious elite of Robertson today except the Herodians actually made an attempt to appear religious.

[jfree]

Thanks, but I didn't write it, I pasted from this link:

www.conservativeonline.org/journals/03_10_journal/1999v3n10_id04.htm

They have some good info, it was really about the Book of Matthew, but had the information you wanted about Herod. It didn't mention the Chiapas but had some good info on the Pharisees and Herodians, see below:

The Herodian Party

These were influential people who were partisans and supporters of the Herodian dynasty. They are but mentioned three times in the New Testament. Twice they are seen as joining with the Pharisees in their criticisms of Jesus. The first incident took place in the Galilee region after Christ healed the man with the withered hand. The Herodians and Pharisees tried to destroy the Lord (Mk. 3:6). The second incident took place in Jerusalem when they tried to accuse Jesus of disregarding the obligation of paying taxes to Caesar (Mt. 22:16; Mk. 12:13). They are not referred to in Luke or John.

The Herodians and the Sadducees were on the same side against the Pharisees, the Herodians being pro-Herodian government with the Pharisees being anti-Herodian. This is seen in Mark 8:15 and Matthew 16:6, 12 where the Pharisees and Sadducees (and Herodians) are contrary in politics but still together in opposing Christ.

The Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the rule of the Herods and Rome, whereas the Herodians wanted to preserve the Herodian rule. However, the Herodians and the Pharisees worked together to oppose Jesus, because he was introducing a new kingdom … that neither wanted.13

[twilly]

Tittus stated.........

"I offer this discussion because I have often wondered why the Council chose those writings and omitted others."

In the first centuries it was determined which writings were actually the writings of the Apostles and the Evangelists. There ARE writings which are anonymous or un-attributable and which, therefore, could not be considered bona fide. These writings are called the Apocrypha.

Tittus continued.........

"For example, my Protestant bible does not contain Tobit, Judith, 1& 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch that are probably in your Catholic bible."

First off, this is a question only a Catholic and a well-informed, non-biased, non-anti-Catholic can respond to with facts. Unfortunately some non-Catholics are self-misinformed or have been deliberately misinformed by Protestant pastors on the books you mention, which are known by respectable scholars as the DEUTEROCANONICAL Books. These seven Books of the Old Testament that you refer to here...Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiastius, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees and also certain additions to Ester and David...were part of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Because the books were taught by Christ and the Apostles, they were taught by the Early Church and they are taught by the Catholic Chuch, of course. These books are the seven books Luther threw out because he decided to change THE Bible when he invented "Lutheranism", a political philosophy based on "rationalism" that has nothing to do with Christ. Luther figured it would be SO much easier to peddled his philosophical invention if he threw out what Christ said about Purgatory, among other important facts of His teachings.

I have supplied a website on these seven Old Testament Books and the sorted history of Lutheranism, etc., that caused all the confusion and the deliberate, political manipulation and misleading of non-Catholics.

Tittus continued.........

"I have not read any of these thoroughly but do find that Maccabees and the works of Josephus are often cited along with other ancient (historical nonreligious) artifacts to describe the 450 years of Jerusalem's history between Nehemiah and the Gospels."

That's all well and good; however, it must be pointed out that Christ did not Incarnate to teach history. He came to teach theology...the study of God...and He came to Fulfill the Law.

Tittus continued........

"I have listened to and read some of the works by Han Hanegraaff (The Bible Answer Man) and R.C. Sprouls on the subject. Their knowledge of biblical social history and things cited in other references makes me really curious as to what these "lost books" say (or did not) that caused them to be excluded. However, Hanegraaff did answer one caller sometime ago with the basic "it don't mean noth'n" statement. "The thing to remember is that the books we do have are sufficient and have been so, to prove that Jesus is the Son of God.""

Whereas it's a fact that Christ is God, the Son of God, there is more to His Revelation of God than just Himself, for starters. Original Christian Theology, which Christ teaches us, involves the complete "shabang" of what it's all about. Christ suffered horrendously for us to know all He wants us to know. When Luther change THE Bible, he went against Christ and Henry the VIII's successor to the English throne, King James, did the same thing Luther did because King James witnessed how politically successful changing THE Bible had been for Luther, BUT, we are warned in "The Book of Revelation" and in no uncertain words, NOT to change THE Bible. Because Luther and King James did EXACTLY what they were NOT supposed to do, confusion, delusion, horrendous misinterpretations, hundreds of Protestant splits, and non-Christianity have been the lot of the hundreds of Protestantisms. Therefore, for all Protestants, the so-called "lost books" are the seven books Luther and King James threw out.

Tittus continued........

"http://www.equip.org/free/DM708.pdf (Hanegraaff's organization, this is a Catholic funded organization) This is also a writing he has offered on the Canon."

Tittus, Hanegraaff and his organization must not be funded by the Catholics since the name and the organization are not recognized by the Church.

Actually, this site is written by a Calvanist and Calvanism is NOT the Early Church and Original Christianity as the Roman Catholic Church IS. Calvanism was started by a French guy named Calvin who lived a generation after Luther, so we're talking the 16th Century and later, of course, and, as with Luther, Henry VIII, and King James, Calvin invented a form of Protestantism which also has little resemblance to what Christ teaches.

Be that as it is, the site explains why Mormonism is, in so many words, a complete fraud and, it sure is. The Mormons give lip service to being Christians but they hold to the "book of Mormon" and NOT the New Testament.

What's more, the founders of Mormonism copied the Seneca religion of Gaiwiio [guy-we-you]. I know this because I'm Seneca but, one doesn't HAVE to be Seneca to see that Mormonism is a copy of Gaiwiio. The tenets of Gaiwiio are nearly identical to the tenets of Christianity and Gaiwiio is NOT a form of paganism because it holds the belief in ONE supreme being. Because of this regarding Gaiwiio, it was easy for the founders of Mormonism to copy Gaiwiio.

The Seneca prophet, Handsome Lake, founder of Gaiwiio, based Gaiwiio on visions he received from "messengers" and the founders of Mormonism were located in the woods of Upstate New York, or near the Seneca lands, and they MUST have known about Gaiwiio. The Mormon founders probably were hitting the jug one night and "came up with" Mormonism and the "messenger" idea of Gaiwiio and called their so-called "messenger" an "angel" named Maroni.

St. Paul warns that even if an angel "appears" and teaches anything other than EXACTLY what Christ teaches, that so-called "angel" is NOT from God. This is the same set of circumstances that Muhammed claimed happened to him regarding the Archangel St. Gabriel, BUT, Mohammed messed up big time because St. Gabriel would not have gone against what he told Mary when he announced to her that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Son of God, or of God.

Tittus continued.........

"http://www.ligonier.org/ (R.C. Sprouls is perhaps the most influential historical sociologist that I have read. He seems to have a finger tip knowledge of philosophy as well as historical influences of who, what, when, and where.)"

I checked this site, also. Sprouls is another Protestant peddling his own version of Protestantism, for money of course, and the site appears not to mention which Protestant sect or sects he is, or has been, a member of. Maybe he just popped up out of no where as many sects have done, e.g., Calvanism.

Tittus asked.........

"Jude, is this answer sufficient?"

Tittus, I have no idea who this "Jude" is, BUT, if you're refering to Saint Jude the Apostle, then HIS answers are sufficient.

Tittus continued..........

"The "don't mean noth'm" expression is one that I heard years and years ago while in the service. Basically, it means that no matter how confusing or terrible, it doesn't really make any difference."

Regarding any form of Protestantism, confusing and terrible as most of them are, it makes absolutely NO difference if a person holds to one over the other since they are each a form of philosophy, not theology.

In order to clear up the huge problem Luther and King James created regarding the INSPIRED books they threw out of their invented bibles, I invite you to view the following website on the Canon of the Old Testatment:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

[twilly]

Tittus,

This post I'm countering is a perfect example of pure error.

jfree stated:

Those books are not considered inspired works, not even by the Jews. They were not even part of the Catholic bible for a long time, Pope Gregory the great, I looked it up before, he too considered them uninspired, they were simply considered history books not biblical record. They are called the apocrypha books.

The Deuterocanonical Books...."the Deuter"...are NOT the Apocryphal writings, the Jews are not the Original Christians, the Christians are not Jews, Original Christians do NOT care what the Jews thought, AND, Pope St. Gregory the Great held to the Doctrine of Purgatory which is BACKED by the Deuter, so whoever this poster "looked up", it wasn't Pope St. Gregory the Great.

What is the Apocrypha?
The term "apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Those books are the Deuterocanonical Books and St. Jerome, who was a member of the RCC and who also held to the Doctrine of Puragory, like Pope St. Gregory the Great, NEVER called the Deuter "the Apocrypha" because the Apocrypha consists of the heretical writings of the Gnostics and anonymous authors whose writings are unattibutable or which are not attributatle to the Apostles or to the Evangelists.

Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal--including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Deuterocanonical Books are Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiastius, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees, and two additions to Ester and David. In addition, Original Christians NEVER "considered" the Deuter the Apocrypha....only non-Original "Christians" do.

The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries.

First you see the Deuters, then you don't....then you do, then you don't.....LOL...all in the name of politics and Christ has nothing to do with non-Original "Christian" politics.

Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them).

ALL bibles exclude the Apocrypha....it's the Deuter that the non-Original "Christians" threw out for their political agendas....but, again, in 1611, you see the Deuters in one of these non-Original "Christian bibles". The non-Originals "Christians" can't even agree among themselves.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh)

NEITHER Church includes the Apocrypha....it's the Deuters, AND both Churches ARE the Original Christians.

but refer to them as "deuterocanonical" books.

...because that's what they are.

In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas).

NOT "generally"....EXACTLY. THE Apocrypha contains the heretical writings of the Gnostics and anonymous writings.

These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha."

Figures....misname the Deuter the Apocrypha and then be forced to have to come up with a non-existent name for the Apocrypha.

What is the Apocrypha anyway? The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals.

THE Apocrypha is EXACTLY that, but the Deuters is NOT that.

At the Council of Trent (1546)

Ahhh....yes, this posters "favorite" Council, again, after I successfully countered this in the HOC forum, and she ran away. LOL

the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God.

First, these are the Deuters. Second, they ARE the Inspired Word of God. Third, they were ALWAYS part of THE ORIGINAL BIBLE. Fourth, the were taught by Christ, by the Apostles, and by the Early Church. Fifth, the Apostolic Traditons were ALWAYS taught by the Apostles and by the Early Chruch...and sixth...it's the Roman Catholic Church, not the "Roman Catholic religion" since the Catholic religion is CATHOLICISM.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

There's no such thing as "The Roman Catholic Apocrypha", BUT, the Deuterocanonical Books ARE........

Tobit Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Baruch First and Second Maccabees Additions to Esther and Daniel

...exactly as I stated above but now this list is not the same one as this poster stated above. This poster doesn't know what anything contains and what anything is called.

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion

.....by the Early Church, AKA, the RCC....NOT "the Catholic religion".

First and Second Esdras Prayer of Manasses Susanna*
*"Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."

This is glaringly wrong. First, NONE of these books are in THE Apocrypha and second......these books are the Deuterocanonical Books of the Alexandrian Jews.

Tittus, due to the overwhelming errors of this poster, there is a need to provide you with the correct information on these books and on the entire topic of the Deuterocanonical Books. This is a second posting of this site but, at this juncture, the site comes to the rescue regarding the truth of which books are which.......

The factual website on the Canon of the Old Testament:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

The Apocrypha was NEVER in any bible.......the Deuters were always taught in/as THE Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

First, the Hebrew language is NOT the "sacred language" of any Original Christian. However, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch...which means "Blessing" in Hebrew...Machabees I and II, Ester and David were ALL orginally in Hebrew and Wisdom was written by a Jew who lived in Alexandria and who knew Greek. The original language of the Book of Tobias follows the following........

Second, Christ never "endorsed" Hebrew, anyway. Third, Christ never gave a hoot about historians and poets, "inspired" or not. Fourth, Christ KNEW the Evangelists and the Apostles wrote in Greek and if He didn't want them to, He would have told them not to. Fifth, Christ refered to verses the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS and that's why they are in THE Bible.

The facts are, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated by St. Jerome into Greek. In fact, St. Jerome enlisted the aid of a Hebrew scholar, who knew both Hebrew AND Aramaic, in order to TRANSLATE the Book of Tobias into Greek.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

THE Apocryphal writers....of course not, BUT, the Deuterocanonial writers were INSPIRED BY GOD. This is ANOTHER huge error made by so-called "know-it-alls" who attempt to slam the Catholic Church. They're always in such a rush to slam the Church, they mess up everytime with their erroneous terminology. NONE of the writers of THE Bible were "inspired" because THE Bible is THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures

The Deuters are not the Apocrypha, the Jews had nothing to do with THE Apocrypha, the Jews are not Original Christians, the Original Christians are not Jews, Christ and the Original Christians don't care what the Jews thought/think "inspired" and don't care what the Jews are the "custodians of", and since non-Original "Christians" hold what the Jews "say" before what Christ says, then they are Jews.

(the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament).

THE Apocrypha was, in part, written a few centuries before Christianity and in part after the New Testament, as per the pre-Christian Gnostic writings and as per the post-Christian Gnostic writings of heretical Christians.

The Deuters were written before the New Testament because they are part of the Old Testament and the Old Testament was written before the New Testament.....Old was first, New was second, as everyone knows.

In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Again, the Jews had nothing to do with the Apocrypha, BUT, the Original Christians had the entire Old Testament BEFORE 70 A.D., including the Deuters, in spite of all the Jewish persecution and censorship of the Christians to include unsuccessful attempts at keeping the Old Testament Books from those the Jews suspected of converting to Christianity.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves.

The DEUTERS are not "fabulous" and self-contradictory compared to Luther's changes to THE Bible!

For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

Talk about "fabulous".....what an exaggeration. The first and second Book of Machabees does NOT have Antiochus Epiphanes dying three times....only twice! LOL

The reason is very human and because of the human-ness of the two accounts, both Books are considered the real thing. The first report of his death is just like the first news report....incomplete, inaccurate, and speculative, BUT, the second report in Machabees 2 is the real account. In addition, Josephus agrees with Machabees 1 even though he never knew about it.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible,

THE Apocrypha is not THE Bible or in any bible.

such as prayers for the dead

Since the Deuters are part of the Old Testament, prayers for those who have passed on are part of the New Testament BACKED by the Old Testament. The Doctrine of Purgatory, which St. Jerome and Pope St. Gregory the Great held to, ALSO includes prayers for the who have passed on. In addition, Catholics and most non-Original "Christians" pray for eachother and since they do this, they can pray for those who passed on.

However, Non-Original "Christians" who follow 16th Century philosophers, such as Luther and King James, contradict themselves regarding the Dogma of Prayer, they apparently don't hold to what Christ teaches regarding life after life and, therefore, don't believe in an afterlife....like atheists.

and sinless perfection.

Apparently non-Original "Christians" don't believe what Christ says about Himself and what St. John says about Christ....the Incarnate Son of God....or God AND man....yet, a man who is PURE. In addition, non-Original "Christians" erroneously "believe" that a PURE man, Who is PURE God, would EVER Incarnate into the body of an impure human....LOL Their philosophy is SO limited.

The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Oh, joy....another anti-Catholic advertisement from this poster. The last advertisement this one posted in the HOC forum erroeously attributed verses, which St. Jude never wrote, to mean that St. Jude, who was a founding member of the Catholic Church, supposedly referred to current members of the Church are heretics when St. Jude was writing about NON-members who, at that time, were attempting to discredit Catholicism....LOL. It appears some things never change. In addition, this one didn't even bother to read the advertisement for all the obvious errors such as the year St. Jerome passed on, AND, as a result of not checking, this one posted that St. Jerome did something her advertisement wished he had done AFTER he passed on....LOL.

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

It's 2 Machabees 12:43-46 and these aren't the only verses because there's Wisdom 10:2, Numbers 20:2, 2 Samuel 12:13-14, Habakkuk 1:13 as well verses in the New Testament such as Luke 17:3, 3:3, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 12:32 and 1 Corn. 3:11-15 in which St. Paul clearly states that transgressions will be burnt away and the soul, thus purified, will be saved.

Even modern Protestants, while they avoid the word "purgatory", frequently teach the "doctrine of the middle state" ["Christian Dogmatics", Edinburgh, 1890, p. 457]....LOL, and a rose by any other name is STILL a rose.

Purgatory was accepted by the Jews and in at least a shodowy way, by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. Only heretics...those who had been members of the Chruch....such as the Aligenses, the Waldenses, the Hessites, and, of course, Luther, rejected the Doctrine of Purgatory. Threfore, because they choose to do this, they were less than pre-Christian pagans and Jews.

In addition, as stated above, St. Jerome and Pope St. Gregory the Great held to the Doctrine of Purgatory, as well as Christ, all the Apostles, Origen, Sts. Augustine, Bede, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas and other eminent theologians.

Salvation by works:

This really shows how mindless some non-Original "Christians" can be since "salvation by works", was NEVER taught by Christ or anything of the Apostles, including St. Paul. In Romans 3, St. Paul clearly states, ".....WORKS OF THE LAW", by which St. Paul meant THE JEWISH LAW, since a great deal of Romans to is devoted to "works of the Jewish Law" and that was the only "law" at that time. St. Paul also did NOT mean Original Christians were to forsake charity.

It was Luther who CHANGED The Bible by adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 and, thus, preaching "gossip of Luther" which states, paraphased, man is saved by faith ALONE, which neither Christ nor any of the Apostles taught.

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Again, we are going back and forth here, and these are more verses of the Old Testament which back the New Testament and which prove the Original Christian Doctrine of Purgatory.

At this point, Titus, I offer the website with all the facts on the Original Christian Doctrine of Purgatory:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Magic: Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Original Christianity does not hold to any "doctrine" called "magic". These verses are not the words of Original Scripture and, therefore, they are not the Inspired Word of God. The Inspired Word of God, in the Original Christian verses, state that an angel instructs Tobias on what internal organs of a fish are able to provide medicine for illness. Illness was, and is, of the Devil and medicine which cures illness literally chases away the Devil and keeps him away.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

This Old Testament verse is one of the ones which back the New Testament verses such as the ones in which the Archangel St. Gabriel greets Mary and tells her she is BLESSED...."Blessed art thou among women AND Blessed is the Fruit of thy womb."

Therefore, God's Archangel Gabriel TELLS Mary she is Blessed AND so is Christ. What's more, as stated above, God CANNOT exist in an impure human because God is PURE and purity cannot tolerate impurity.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Again, there is NO Apocryphal book in the Old Testament...it is the Deuterocanonical Books which ARE in the Old Testament and this poster proves it time and again by quoting verses from the Old Testament....the Deuterocanonical Old Testament, thus saving me half of work.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Again, the Apocryphal writings have nothing to do with THE Bible, and they have nothing to do with "the East", except for the Gnostic heresy that was associated with the Early Greek Church.

However, reputiable Biblical scholars concur that the Deuters are part of the Old Testament because Christ and the Apostles QUOTED verses from them ALL THE TIME.

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

King James did the same thing Luther did because he saw how politically expedient it was to be a follower of Luther. Therefore, King James was basically a Lutheran. LOL

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God.

No one ever considered the Apocrypha the Word of God because it had nothing to do with God. The Deuters had everything to do with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and, as stated above, respected Biblical scholars agree.

As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material.

Not the Apocrypha, but the Deuterocanonical Old Testament and this was only done by the philosopher, Luther, and his follower, King James.

This followed the format that Luther had used.

Exactly....Luther, the bipolar sufferer of scruples who had been a Catholic priest, who taught the Old Testament Deuterocanonical texts, who never complained about them once until he was excommunicated for his heretical holdings.

Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Luther was told at the Council of Trent, in no uncertain terms, that his philosophy, which he was to call "Lutheranism", was an out-and-out heresy and when he decided to be a heretic, he called everything about Original Christianity "not Original Christianity". Obviously he thought he existed before Christ and that HE, himself, was "god".

Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629.

"Began to be omitted....", as in first you see it, then you don't...LOL. And, "the Authorized Version" of any non-Original, non-Scriptual "book" is NOT authorized by God.

Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed.

LOL...."lobbied", like the political movements of all non-Original "Christians" which Christ has nothing to do with. And the British....they were the ones who caused severe problems for the Colonies, and the Catholic English.....they slaughtered 45,000 Catholic English... and the Irish....who knows how many of them the Protestant English slaughtered....and the Scots, who were also slaughered, and the Welsh who were slaughtered, AND, they caused problems for the Hindus. So much for the credibility of THEIR "spiritual authority"...LOL

From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Again, the Apocrypha isn't in any bible and the Deuterocanonical Texts are part of the Old Testament. Regarding the the English, since they lost nearly all their "political holdings", the fact that they defied Christ is a good indication why they lost so much.

Not even all Catholic Church Fathers believed the Apocrypha was scripture. Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

As stated, St. Jerome held to the Doctrine of Purgatory, so what's attributed to him, below, is either a complete falsehood....which wouldn 't be surprising given what this poster attempted to pull regarding St. Jude, as mentioned above....OR, this poster has taken what St. Jerome MAY have stated out of context....which is another characteristic of this one's posts.

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

First off, St. Jerome was NEVER the "decision maker" at Councils, he had his own opinion as all other CATHOLIC SAINTS have and which has nothing to do with the Original Christian Old Testament, including the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament. However, he quoted from the Deuterocanonical Texts and because of this, his actions speak louder than a few words and his actions are testimony on his part to the higher standing the Deuters enjoyed in the Church, at-large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship.

What's more, as St. Jerome knew, just because something may not be "held" by the Jews, doesn 't mean it isn't Christian. In fact, back then, what was held by the Original Christians was hardly "Jewish" because Christ FULFILLS the Law rather than just "re-recommends the Law", and, therefore, Christ established a NEW religion over 2,000 years ago, it's called Christianity and Judaism in NOT Christianity.

[twilly]

Tittus...........

author=tits board=Religion thread=1162251227 post=1162406897]Jude, that is the kind of discussion I long for. Could you cite your sources?

I usually try to....LOL I realize this isn't necessary a post from you to me but, I've discovered some interesting pieces of information pertainent to this post of yours that you may be interested in.

Of what you wrote, I am still curious concerning Maccabees. I have not ever been able to throughly read Josephus, my sick ol'mind just cannot follow the logic. However, the sociologist in me wants to gain a greater understanding of the inter testament years.

I posted the website on the Canon of the Old Testament and that site mentions Josephus and Machabees I and II.

For example, Herod the Great was the child of the famous Cleopatra and therefore could not have been a Jew as all Jews must prove their lineage through their mother before they can claim to be of the Tribe of their father. This was true when Moses gave them and is true today.

Herod couldn't have been a child of Cleopatra because she was born in 69 B. C. and he was born in 73 B. C., which means, of course, she was only five years old when he was born.

There are a few trains of thought regarding Herod's ethnicity. One states he was pure Roman and, therefore, he wasn't Jewish, one states he was half Jewish and half Roman, and a third view states his mother was a Idumaean and his father was an Ascalonite and through one or both lines Herod was a descendent of David. If this last one is so, prehaps that's why Herod was furious about Christ when the Persian "Magi" went to Judea looking for the "new king", since Herod knew no "new king" wasn't born to him and besides, he was descended of David and maybe he felt HE should be the one honored by the Persians.

Here's the website entitled "Herod"......

newadvent.org/cathen/07289c.htm


Also, here's a website entitled "Dialogue I" which is an interesting discussion. Once into the site, scroll almost mid-way down until you spot:

Orth.--"Now, Jews."

The next couple of paragraphs mention Herod's lineage.

newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm

Why then did Herod, a non-Jew and Roman puppet choose to build the Temple?

I don't think it mattered to Herod whether he was a Jew or not. He WAS from a very old, established family and Herod just wanted to be a "big cheese".

As far as Herod building the temple, he was a builder to begin with. He built cities and temples in honor of the emperor and "the gods" in his kingdom. He built the temple to the false god, Apollo, on Rhodes [Josephus , "Ant." XVI, v, 3] and he erected theaters, amphitheaters, and hippodromes for games, which were celebrated and stated times, even at Jerusalem [Josephus, "Ant." XV, viii, I, XVI, v, l; Bel. Jud., I, xxi, l, 5].

Given his "position", he had to answer to his "boss" and it was his job to keep the peace....the Pax Romana....and he wanted to "look good" to the emperor so, he kept the peace, if at all possible. Given his personality, he probably built the temple so the Jews couldn't complain much about him and so that he could throw it back up at them even if they had a legitmate gripe. Then, of course, there was the never-ending threat of destroying the temple if he deemed that the Jews "needed punishment".

What official sacred things remained after the destruction of Zerubabbel's temple? Was the Temple worship and were sacrafices accepted by God since the official tools were absent?

If the objects needed to administer an offering, or a sacrifice, were not available, the offering or sacrifice would not have been able to be administered.

Is there any record at all of God's Glory resettling on the Temple after Ezekiel saw it fly away. Yes, Ezekiel later saw it return in a dream, but there is no record of the Glory returning.

I've never run across a record of the glory returning with respect to a PHYSICAL building.

There it could be argued that the Herod temple was just another government building. Why then did Jesus fight so hard and weep so deeply for the Temple and Jerusalem?

By the time Christ started His Ministry, the "temple" He referred to is His Own Body. He says, paraphased, destroy THIS temple and in three days it will be restored." Christ was referring to His Body being the temple....and the Body of believers...and the three days He referred to was His Resurrection. This is why He cried....because He knew what He was going to HAVE to go through. Given this fact, what Ezkiel saw in his dream was the restoration....the Resurrection....of Christ's temple which, as stated is His Body.

After Christ Resurrected, the "prophesy" of the restoration of the temple was no longer really used, AND, I can't recall anyone claiming they were/are descended from David.

More on this is in that website I provided, above....the one entitled "Dialogue I'. Go back into the same place I pointed out before, which is....

Orth.--"Now, Jews" and read down from there for a while. Since you appear to be "into" prophecies, this dialogue is about prophecies.

The only other mention of the Glory after Ezekiel 10 is when it enveloped James, John, and Peter during the transfiguration. This could be conjectured as the ordination of Christ.

Christ didn't need ordination because He is God. The Transfiguration was for the benefit of Sts. Peter, James and John.

Like I told Twill, I am a full a 52 year old full time clinical psychology student and my time is limited. Please forgive me if I do not spend much time discussing for the next few weeks.

Don't be concerned at all, Tittus. Post when you can. I've been dealing with a busy time, myself, lately....and, hey...we're close to the same age, by the way.

Thanks for sharing, your knowledge is just what I have been look'n for. Dave

Ahhh...so your name is "Dave"! That's the perfect name, given the discussion, herein, on the descendency from David. LOL

I've enjoyed looking a few things up for this response post to you, Tittus. As you once posted....everything points to Christ.

Take care and I look forward to future posting....when you have a moment.

[tits]

I have spent my life oblivious to this subject choosing to take the accepted path of besmirching those who differ from us. The socio-psychology of belief perseverance seems to drive "Joe Average" of any religion. For most of may family, Catholic or Lutheran, as well as the Church of Christ types, they can cite book chapter and verse to support their perspectives of faith but resort to generalities to contradict the "chosen other." For much of my life, the "chosen others" have been the Pentecostals, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. It has been easy to identify specific aspects of those teachings that are contrary to the scriptures.

What really worries me and what I am attempting to gain from this discussion is this.
We cannot reach or teach anyone as long as we are more concerned with throwing stones and forcing the non-learned to accept our book as truth. Satan has won this portion of the battle to date by allowing the none believes to let our hypocrisy of "loving our neighbor" keep us apart.

Twill, your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is wonderful. I would love to invite my cousin Tom and his brother (just ordained a deacon by the same diocese that ordained his father as an elder) to join in this discussion. It is not that I do not trust you, it is that they know me and may be able to explain this in a way that I can understand.

J and Twill and Sarge, this discussion illustrates what I believe Satan is laughing about. That is, for many Christians our " leben Sie und lassen Sie Phasen" laissez-faire attitude toward faith has us accepting even those faiths and practices that we know are in error as having merit. How many of those posting against the war on THC have stated the mantra that this war would not have happened if Bush had left the Muslim alone because we can't know if their version of religion is any better than ours?

This election, in fact the last few, are illustrations of this. God warned and warned and warned Israel (Northern Tribes) and then Judah not to get to intimidate with Foreign practices. Heck, Solomon openly broke the Levitical law and married foreign wives and then brought in their gods. I have come to believe that Solomon, for all his wisdom is a poor example of a Godly man. However, those "tiny steps" or flirtations with false religions introduced by Solomon eventually led to a laissez-faire attitude toward "what is true religion". God finally ended all that nonsense and yet, here we are again. A country founded on a faith in the One God of the Protestant Pilgrims and shaped by the Spanish RCC zealots who went were no-white man had gone before. We are now taught that God had nothing to do with our founding fathers nor did He or the Bible have any input into the Constitution.

Since WWII we have taken tiny steps with the new religion of Humanism and it has become the official faith of the Democratic Party. This is known by the Unitarian Church of total acceptance of “good people” regardless of their faults. They are quick to quote “throw out the first stone” against any of us who dare to challenge them for we all have and continually sin.

Friends, how are we going to turn this "USS Titanic" away from the moral iceberg of Humanism? Can we turn it? Do we need to know the unified truth of Jesus is the Son of God and that it is only by His grace that we shall ever know eternal life? Or, can we allow ourselves to be tossed like the famous St. James “bottle” of faith, tossed too and fro upon the waves of public or social opinion?

Twill, thank you, it will take some time for me to understand this sufficiently to offer an intelligent rebuttal. Yes, one is formulating.
Are you ordained?

Jfree, you and I are out of our league with our reliance upon the net and learned writers here. This will be a fun discussion.

Dave.

Twill, I apologize I thought that you were “Jude”.

[cataracts]

tits said:

I have spent my life oblivious to this subject choosing to take the accepted path of besmirching those who differ from us. The socio-psychology of belief perseverance seems to drive "Joe Average" of any religion. For most of may family, Catholic or Lutheran, as well as the Church of Christ types, they can cite book chapter and verse to support their perspectives of faith but resort to generalities to contradict the "chosen other." For much of my life, the "chosen others" have been the Pentecostals, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. It has been easy to identify specific aspects of those teachings that are contrary to the scriptures.

What really worries me and what I am attempting to gain from this discussion is this.
We cannot reach or teach anyone as long as we are more concerned with throwing stones and forcing the non-learned to accept our book as truth. Satan has won this portion of the battle to date by allowing the none believes to let our hypocrisy of "loving our neighbor" keep us apart.

Twill, your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is wonderful. I would love to invite my cousin Tom and his brother (just ordained a deacon by the same diocese that ordained his father as an elder) to join in this discussion. It is not that I do not trust you, it is that they know me and may be able to explain this in a way that I can understand.

J and Twill and Sarge, this discussion illustrates what I believe Satan is laughing about. That is, for many Christians our " leben Sie und lassen Sie Phasen" laissez-faire attitude toward faith has us accepting even those faiths and practices that we know are in error as having merit. How many of those posting against the war on THC have stated the mantra that this war would not have happened if Bush had left the Muslim alone because we can't know if their version of religion is any better than ours?

This election, in fact the last few, are illustrations of this. God warned and warned and warned Israel (Northern Tribes) and then Judah not to get to intimidate with Foreign practices. Heck, Solomon openly broke the Levitical law and married foreign wives and then brought in their gods. I have come to believe that Solomon, for all his wisdom is a poor example of a Godly man. However, those "tiny steps" or flirtations with false religions introduced by Solomon eventually led to a laissez-faire attitude toward "what is true religion". God finally ended all that nonsense and yet, here we are again. A country founded on a faith in the One God of the Protestant Pilgrims and shaped by the Spanish RCC zealots who went were no-white man had gone before. We are now taught that God had nothing to do with our founding fathers nor did He or the Bible have any input into the Constitution.

Since WWII we have taken tiny steps with the new religion of Humanism and it has become the official faith of the Democratic Party. This is known by the Unitarian Church of total acceptance of “good people” regardless of their faults. They are quick to quote “throw out the first stone” against any of us who dare to challenge them for we all have and continually sin.

Friends, how are we going to turn this "USS Titanic" away from the moral iceberg of Humanism? Can we turn it? Do we need to know the unified truth of Jesus is the Son of God and that it is only by His grace that we shall ever know eternal life? Or, can we allow ourselves to be tossed like the famous St. James “bottle” of faith, tossed too and fro upon the waves of public or social opinion?

Twill, thank you, it will take some time for me to understand this sufficiently to offer an intelligent rebuttal. Yes, one is formulating.
Are you ordained?

Jfree, you and I are out of our league with our reliance upon the net and learned writers here. This will be a fun discussion.

Dave.

Twill, I apologize I thought that you were “Jude”.

Hi Tittus,
I enjoy reading Twilly. She's very passionate and very well studied. I always look for errors in what she says. If I find one it is ususally of a minor imporance.
It appears that you have taken to heart your faith and you also compare it to the faith of others. Our Catholic Church teachers have taught us that faith is not made just with information. The Protestants understand Christianity in a manner based on what they were taught. The Catholics understand also based on what they were taught. However, it takes more than teaching to produce faith. Faith is produced by the will. A person's must "will" themselves to believe their faith. Once a person has knowledge and the will to believe, God brings them the next step forward. He brings them to Faith which can only be had through a gift from God.
As a clinical psychologist I thought you might be interested in this.

Of course, it also indicates, that someone could have knowledge and will but not faith. This is an interesting conclusion as the Protestants and the Catholics have not the same definition of faith.

Cataracts