The Cannon a.k.a. the Lost Books

[cataracts]

twilly said:

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



...because that's what they are.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



...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.



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



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




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



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.



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 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, 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.



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



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 is not THE Bible or in any bible.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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 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".



"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.



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



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.



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.

Hi Twilly,
I enjoyed reading your post.
You are one passionate female!!

Cataracts

[jfree]

Nah, not out of our league at all. I use websites to back up what I have learned over the course of my life to show where it is also available and for more detail if others wish to look.

I have studied this area in particular, the early church, apostalic succession, the aprochrypha etc..

It is only pride that someone thinks it an attack on their person when I repond to another poster and they feel the need to say they have won the argument, what we simply have is a disagreement on history where there is evidence that is ambigious, but as stated by you it is a triumph of Satan when one's pride makes them think they are superior or better than others, that their faith is superior or knowlege, when your knowlege comes from only one source, one cannot begin to claim non-biased learning or having seen all sides of the argument.

You are going to have to decide for yourself what you believe Tittus, but the Aprocrypha was called it by Jerome, Josephus and Pope Gregory, and it's teaching lean to the mystical side as if written by the same who wrote for the Kabala, ancient Jewish mysticism. The Jews were the ones who wrote and held the OT, they are the ones who would know what was in the OT and what wasn't.

[jfree]

Here is some more info on Jerome's own words...

Jerome's Influence www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/prologi.shtml
Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405. In addition to the sacred text, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues by Jerome. For ten centuries, these prologues were part of every Bible in the western Church, and through these prologues many western Christians received their first exposure to the concept of apocrypha.

The Vulgate manuscripts were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no Apocrypha section. But the prologues clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal, meaning not in the canon. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the books of the Machabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as an apocryphon, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the Nicene Council.

Although in his Apology against Rufinus, Book II he denied the authority of the canon of the Hebrews, this caveat does not appear in the prologues themselves, nor in his prologues does he specify the authorship of the canon he describes. Whatever its origin or authority, it was this canon without qualification which was written into the prologues of the bibles of Western Europe.

[jfree]

Interesting pov Cateracts, but even Freud would say you imply more than what you write, as if non-Catholics do not believe faith is an act of will. I have never met a christian of any flavor who did not believe faith to be an act of will, you have to will yourself to lead a life that Christ would be proud of, all Christians believe this. As far as I can tell we all have the same definition of Faith, but it is the carrying out of everyday beliefs and ceremony that seperates us, it is whether we believe in papal authority or not, and faith and works vs faith alone, bible versus word of men and bible that seperate our beliefs.

[tits]

I just wish that I had the time to really study it.

jfree said:

I have never met a christian of any flavor who did not believe faith to be an act of will, you have to will yourself to lead a life that Christ would be proud of, all Christians believe this.

I believe that my experience is the same, but in practice, the Mormons and JOV are as far out there as they come.

The discussion on the apocrypha is perhaps the key to this entire discussion. I have read several of the articles on the New Advent over the last few years and find that they make sense. I really like the source. I must also admit that Hank Hanegraaff, T. J. Kennedy, and R. C. Sproul do too.

What I am attempting to formulate is the social environment of the intertestament period.

For example somewhere between Nehemiah 10 where they reinstate the Sabbath law and Jesus (approximately 560 years), the law took on hundreds of caveats to make take little resemblance to the original Levitical Law. What was happening that modified the law?
How did those Pharisee know that healing was a work? I can see that it could be challenged because it would force the cleansed to offer sacrifices, ceremonial washing to cleanse, i.e. to do work, but what work did Jesus do?

Also, Justus Maccabees was great military leader in sense that David could take smaller forces and extra victory. However, my limited readings do not see him performing many of David's acts of faith. In fact the absence of a central "Jewish government" after Zerubbabel plus the absence of any reference to the "glory of God" returning clearly shows that that Israel was not ordained by God.

HOWEVER, what do those apocrypha books state about our relationship with God and the coming of Christ?

The Apocrypha are a few of the books that Discovery Times and THC have discussed during those specials concerning the "lost books".

If as Twill has claimed that there are no lost books and those that are omitted from the Lutheran Protestant bible should be there, then what do they state that is any different or that can clarify who Christ is?

Twil, I was raised in a Lutheran Church that held services in German until I was 9 years old. I almost went to the Concordia seminary before becoming a member of the Church of Christ. My experience with a Catholic family, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Church of Christ, and my father-in-laws' Assembly of Christ, and my baby sister's Mormon is that most of the truth about the other is not what is taught. Rather it is just like this political campaign in that only the negative and then the most outlandish of the negative is taught. For example, I agree that Martin Luther had difficulty with James because of he conflict at the Diet of Worms over the buying of indulgences (Works alone can get you into heaven), but I did not know that he actually removed any books from the bible. In fact, in the Luther's Small Catechism we are taught that Luther taught that we should not exclude any book and that we should not call ourselves after him.

From what I have read and can remember, there are some real differences between the Luther and Catholic Catechism, but there are many more similarities. I agree that Calvin and Wesley taught many more differences than Luther.

Twil, Let me understand this correctly, your assertion is that there is no faith beyond that of the Holy Mother the Church? To that and to many others I counter with a reference to Jesus two warnings in Matthew (7 and 25) that there will be many who come to him on the last day claiming to be his disciples because of all the good works they had done. Jesus told them like he did the church in Philadelphia (spit the out) because he never knew them.

My point is that I believe that Paul's letter to the Ephesians is inspired for it agrees with Jesus' own recorded words. "One way only".

Again I ask, what is in those OT books that point the way to Christ and when were they removed from the original Canon?

When necessary I will pull my quotes from: www.biblegateway.com/, The Bible Gateway. They offer numerous translations but do not have the apocrypha or the Catholic bible. Do you have a source?

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Here is some more info on Jerome's own words...

Jerome's Influence www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/prologi.shtml
Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405. In addition to the sacred text, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues by Jerome. For ten centuries, these prologues were part of every Bible in the western Church, and through these prologues many western Christians received their first exposure to the concept of apocrypha.

The Vulgate manuscripts were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no Apocrypha section. But the prologues clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal, meaning not in the canon. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the books of the Machabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as an apocryphon, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the Nicene Council.

Although in his Apology against Rufinus, Book II he denied the authority of the canon of the Hebrews, this caveat does not appear in the prologues themselves, nor in his prologues does he specify the authorship of the canon he describes. Whatever its origin or authority, it was this canon without qualification which was written into the prologues of the bibles of Western Europe.

jfree,
St. Jerome's Prologues, which you mentioned were in every Bible for the last 1000 years, were written in Latin. I have to hand it to you for your scholarship. I have never heard of these Prologues, not that I don't believe they exist, but I do have a failing in that I can't read Latin. The fact that you do read Latin is commendable.

But let's get to the gist of my reply. Catholics, of which I am one, have never used the word "Apocryphal". This is strictly Protestant in origin when referring to the Books that Luther and his ilk eliminated from the Bible. The one true Bible. Why do I say "one true Bible?" The Bible was put together by Roman Catholics including such high ranking holy men as St. Jerome and St. Augustine. This "canon" of the Bible was approved by the Pope. In other words: The Magisterium of the Catholic Church approved the canon of the Bible. Therefore the canon is an infallable document.
This canon was not shown to the Jews for approval. The Jews had nothing to do with the canon of the Bible. To say that "Jews" disagreed with this or that is totally a moot point. In other words, who cares what they say about anything?
Luther came along 1200 years later and made some arbitrary rules concerning the canon of the Bible. Luther, who was not called to start a new religion, who was considered a heretic by his own Church decided that the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible incorrectly. Of course, minus the Books he ripped out of the canon, his Bible was almost exactly the same as the Catholic Bible. (almost). Quite a coincidence!!

King James comes around and decides he would make sure that all Protestants get the proper Bible. For the Old Testament, King James' men went to the Jews for verification. The proper canon of the Bible was formulated by Christians. Catholics. The Protestant King James went to the Jews for help. Very odd.

What you said about the Deuterocanonical Books not being the Apocryphal writings is true, but only from a Protestant point of view. Catholics have always believed that these books were Deutero.

It was the Magisterium of the Church in 400 AD that decided that the whole canon would be accepted as the inspired word of God.
I don't know where you got this information on Gregory the Great, but he would never have gone against what the Church said in 400 AD.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Interesting pov Cateracts, but even Freud would say you imply more than what you write, as if non-Catholics do not believe faith is an act of will. I have never met a christian of any flavor who did not believe faith to be an act of will, you have to will yourself to lead a life that Christ would be proud of, all Christians believe this. As far as I can tell we all have the same definition of Faith, but it is the carrying out of everyday beliefs and ceremony that seperates us, it is whether we believe in papal authority or not, and faith and works vs faith alone, bible versus word of men and bible that seperate our beliefs.[/quote

jfree,
Protestants do not believe that faith is an act of the will. They never have. Every one of the main line Protestant reformers have said that whenever man uses his will only evil will come of it. Of all the Christian Churches it is only the Roman Catholic Church which demands that their members use their free will.

I believe that this is where the difference in definitions comes from with the word "faith". Protestants use the word "faith" as a description of the church to which they belong, ie,. Baptist faith, Luthern faith. etc. Roman Catholics use the word "faith" to describe 'what' they believe, ie,. The Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Consecration of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I know that you will disagree with me about the Protestant use of the word "will". A person, of any faith, cannot live on Earth without exercising their free will, however, every Protestant reformer considered the will evil and something that is to be done away with. This belief has found a very secure and safe haven with Protestantism. Not only that, but the very idea of teaching that the "will" is to be put down goes along very nicely with all the reformers not wanting to be questioned about their Protestant faith.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Nah, not out of our league at all. I use websites to back up what I have learned over the course of my life to show where it is also available and for more detail if others wish to look.

I have studied this area in particular, the early church, apostalic succession, the aprochrypha etc..

It is only pride that someone thinks it an attack on their person when I repond to another poster and they feel the need to say they have won the argument, what we simply have is a disagreement on history where there is evidence that is ambigious, but as stated by you it is a triumph of Satan when one's pride makes them think they are superior or better than others, that their faith is superior or knowlege, when your knowlege comes from only one source, one cannot begin to claim non-biased learning or having seen all sides of the argument.

You are going to have to decide for yourself what you believe Tittus, but the Aprocrypha was called it by Jerome, Josephus and Pope Gregory, and it's teaching lean to the mystical side as if written by the same who wrote for the Kabala, ancient Jewish mysticism. The Jews were the ones who wrote and held the OT, they are the ones who would know what was in the OT and what wasn't.

jfree,
Using websites to back up your point of view is OK, but certainly not suitable when used as the only source. Websites are notorious for passing on incorrect information. In order to be accurate, you must go back to the "sources". Websites can very possible give you the glorified opinion of someone's fanasies.

Jerome nor any of the other Church Fathers used the word "Apocrypha", at least not in the way that you desribe the term. Where did you get this information? It is incorrect and you stated it as the truth.

One more very important point jfree: The Jews are not the bearers of the Old Testament. It was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that decided there even was an Old Testament.
The Jews have nothing to do with it. They don't hold anything when it comes the the Bible. It was Jews who wrote all of these scriptures, but it was Roman Catholics who made the canon of the Bible.

Cataracts

[twilly]

Hi, Tittus.....

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.

The Pentecostals, Mormons, and JWs are far, far "down the line" in time and in changing THE Bible and/or using their own "books" before the Bible...or before either the the New or the Old Testament. Therefore, as you point out, it IS easy to identify the glaring differences.

However, from Catholicism...Original Christianity....Lutheranism/Anglicanism [the Church of England]/Episcopaliansim [American split from Anglicanism], the differences in these non-Catholic "isms" are ALSO easy to point out AND in theologican terms. There is nothing "vague" or "general" about their differences.

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.

First, Tittus....may I suggest changing the word "worries" to "concerns". Even Christ says that worry doesn't add an inch to us....in other words, worry doesn't help, BUT, it's perfectly normal to be concerned, of course.

Second, Catholics are never concerned about "whether or not" THE Bible is THE Bible, because it IS THE Bible. You'll hardly ever, if ever, witness a Catholic going door to door like the JWs and some Lutherans for the purpose of "evangelizing', or shouting from intersections of street corners like Baptists in Denver, or "hole-ing up" in ONE city and claiming more than one spouse like Mormons do while claiming they don't.

What you usually will witness with Catholics is their imitation of Christ and their sincere acceptance and application of Christ's Words, especially His Great Commandment, "Go ye, therefore, to all nations, teaching and baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Since the Apostles, the Catholics have done that and more. One of the most recent examples of this is Blessed Mother Teresa of India, BUT, her example is not the only one. In nearly every nation, Catholics are present and we minister to the very important needs of those in each nation who have been all but forgotten by their nations. And, in forums, like this one, Catholics are present. We don't "preach", we teach by sharing information, and we know that Christianity is as much CAUGHT as it is TAUGHT, and so, we witness at appropriate times.

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.

As long as posters are discussing Christ, Satan loses. Satan is not on our minds....CHRIST is. The non-believers post their tripe about stuff like....Christianity is just like "this myth", "that myth", and some other danged "myth"....LOL Pagans attempt to post that Christianity is based in "paganism"....LOL The facts are....Judaism was originally FROM paganism because Judaism...or monotheism...sprung from a tribe which originally held to various forms of paganism....until Abraham, who sincerely search his mind and his heart for the truth, heard God's Voice, listened, and followed what God said.

Christ's teaching of "love thy neighbor" IS a cornerstone of Christianity, true, but it's not the ONLY teaching....there are the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the parables, Christ's miracles, His Incarnation, His Baptism, His Ministry and His call to His Apostles and disciples, His Transfiguration, His establishment of His Church, His Crucifiction, His Resurrection, His Great Commandment, His Ascension, His sending of the Holy Spirit, etc., and all of this CAN'T be "whittled down" into a few words and stuck into a thimble...as non-Christians would like.

What's more, Christians have the RIGHT to discuss Christianity...to even fight like cats and dogs...and non-beleivers have NO right to say "boo" about it....especially when they attempt to use the "love thy neighbor" quote against Christians because they're non-believers and they're non-believers for a reason....they don't WANT to believe. Therefore, THEY have no right to quote Christ. Since they are so set against believing, then they need to stop being self-contradictory by posting ANYTHING to Christians. So...heck with them.

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.

Hey....when it comes to intelligent, knowledgeable discussion, the more intelligent, knowledgeable posters, the merrier. I'm not "the lone Catholic", in this forum or in the HOC forum. Also, there are a number of websites, of all sorts, that aid all of us.

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.

You can count me out on this one, Tittus. I don't "accept" non-Christian and anti-Christian nonsense when it comes to Christianity and the history of Christianity....and I don't accept anti-Catholic garbage about the Church, the Faith, and the history of Catholicism....which IS the greater part of history. What's more, Satan can "laugh" all he wants...his days are numbered.

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?

What?...."any better than ours"

Their "version of religion" cause 2996 people to lose their lives on 9/11, Tittus. One of them was a family member of ours and we, as well as the friends and relatives of 2995 other people DON'T "dig" their "version of religion". What's more, "religion" has nothing to do with the Muslim program, BUT, world domination does.

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.

Tittus...the ancient Egyptians were "warned" by their "gods" not to get involved with the Nubians to the south of them and with the "cut-throats" [Arabs] to the north of them. They DID, and the ancient Egyptians FELL as a result. Also, their gods said they would be returning in 2012...let's see how THAT pans out.

Be that as it may be, for us the world has changed, Tittus. It's a very small world and it became a WHOLE lot smaller after 9/11.

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

Somehow, through it all, Tittus, Judaism survived well enough so that Christ could fill the prophecies. This is all God really needed from Judaism....and God will put an end, sooner or later, to ALL 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.

Wait...hold it right here....there WERE white men who had been in Mexico and, very possibily, Florida, BEFORE the Spaniards.

St. Brendan [484-577] from Ireland wrote about his travels to a land that was full of luxuriant vegetation, he described the vegetation and the animals OF Florida, and the Vikings verified that there was a settlement "south of Vinland", which was also "south of the Chesapeake Bay", they called it "Land of the White Man" and/or "Greater Ireland"....AND the tradition of Native Americans, the Shawnee, in Florida held that there had been a "tribe of whites" in their region and these whites had iron implements.

Leif, the son of Eric the Red, discovered Vinland and he was the Catholic Bishop of Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland [1000]. Either before, during, or after him......in Mexico, Quetzalcoatl was an Icelandic or Norse Catholic priest [between 900 and 1100] and he was the one who told the Aztecs and the Mayans of the "coming of white men from the East". The Icelandics, the Norse, and the Vikings knew about Europe and European progress and the Icelandic/Norse Catholic priest also knew about St. Brendan...so, it was only a matter of time, as Quetzalcoatl pointed out to the Aztecs and the Mayans, that Europeans would be "discovering" the Americans. In addition, when the Spaniards "discovered" Mexico, they found Christian crosses all over Mexico which were venerated religious objects AND when the Spaniards saw the crosses of the Mayan of the Yucatan, the Mayan "explained" TO the Spaniards "a man more resplendent than the sun died upon it". These Mayans also held to baptism and confession, and some of them held to communion. In other words, the Catholic priest had converted Mexican ancient Natives to Catholicism between 900 and 1100.

Regarding our country, it's doubtful too many people will give up Christmas and Easter for the nothingness of nothing.

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.

"We"....not all of us, nor should anyone with any intelligence listen to that garbage. Just the other day in the HOC forum, a non-theist posted a website which attempts to claim the Founding Fathers were "deists" and another poster, a pagan and best buddies to the other poster, had posted that they were ALL Christians on another, concurrent thread. Since they are "buddies"...ganging up on me...I nailed both of them, since one of them HAD to be wrong. To the "rescue" came a new poster who posted a fabulous excerpt from the visions of George Washington. Washington identified Mary, the Mother of Christ, as the woman in his visions who called him "Son of Liberty" and who showed him the future United States of America from coast to coast. Because of those visions, Washington did NOT call off the American Revolution. Good thing Washington listened to Mary! What's more, George Washington studied St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Now...since EVERYONE believes EVERY WORD that came out of the mouth of George Washington, everyone will just HAVE to believe what he said about his own visions ESPECIALLY since they came true!

The entire scene on that thread, with those two "gang-up" buddies in blatant opposition to one another and with Washington's own visions of Mary, was a fantastic sight to see.

Since WWII we have taken tiny steps with the new religion of Humanism and it has become the official faith of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party....LOL They could come up with an intelligent platform to save their lives....literally.

What's more, Humanism is a philosophy from the Roman and Greek empires, first off. It's a re-occurring phenomenum, it's what the Protestant Revolt was based on, and those who consider themselves "intellectuals", e.g., liberals, have a strong tendency to be drawn to it. Humanism is NOT a "religion", it is NOT based in theology and, therefore, it cannot be a "faith", but, as demonstrated century after century, it sure does become a political "football"....BUT...that's all it can be used for.

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.

Those who don't understand Christian Theology are prone to huge mistakes regarding it....for example and as per above, non-Christians who attempt to use "love thy neighbor" against Christians.

Christians are not supposed to "swallow"...as in "accept" BAD BEHAVIOR. No where in ANY bible does it state that Christians are not allowed speak out against un-Christian behavior and no where in Scripture does it say Christians are not allowed to defend Chrisitanity, nor does it state Catholics....Original Christians....are not allowed to defend Original Christianity. Christ and the Apostles SURE defended Chrisitanity, they sure spoke out against BAD BEHAVIOR, and there is a HUGE difference between what is ACTUALLY "judgment" and what is "discernment". Judgment is God's Job and discernment DOES belong to Christians. After all, one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is DISCERNMENT of the spirits and Christians are to discern right from wrong and speak out against what is wrong.

Unitarians, and those of that sort, fail to make necessary DISCERNMENTS between "judgment" and "discernment" and I would challenge anyone of them to attempt to tell me I am not allowed to discern where they are off on Christianity, especially since one of MY Gifts IS discernment of the spirits. I can size some on up just looking at them, or just listening to them on the phone for two minutes, or just reading one medium-size paragraph they have written.

Friends, how are we going to turn this "USS Titanic" away from the moral iceberg of Humanism? Can we turn it?

We don't need to since Humanism runs it's up-and-down course periodically through history, it's never been able to hold a match to Christ, and the "stronger" it appears to become, the more miracles occur within Christianity. In other words, Humanism tends to shoot itself in it's own foot. What's more, Humanism like paganism, does not satisfy the deepest of human spiritual needs as Christianity always has.

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?

Christians had better know these facts or they're not Christians.

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?

"Allow ourselves"? Why would a Christian allow him/herself to be "tossed" in any manner regarding "public or social opinion"? Opinions come and go....Christ is forever.

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

You're welcome, Tittus. Take your time and don't be concerned about "intelligent rebuttal" because I'm not an "intellectual". I enjoy everyday people, how they feel, what they think, and what makes them "tick". Sociology was the best of all subjects since the more I learned about other people, the more I learned about myself.

Are you ordained?

Not in the sense you, most likely, mean...BUT...all Catholics are called through their Baptisms to use whatever Spiritual Gifts they are given to bring Christ "to all nations"....and to NOT put up with nonsense....LOL.

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

I don't mind, at all....Jude was a great Apostle!

[twilly]

"Hi Twilly,
I enjoyed reading your post."

Thanks, Cataracts!

"You are one passionate female!! Cataracts "

You are one insightful male!!

LOL and welcome to the Outpost, Cataracts.

[twilly]

Nah, not out of our league at all.

Original Christianity is.

I use websites to back up what I have learned over the course of my life to show where it is also available and for more detail if others wish to look.

"Some" bow to the god known as "public websites". Right...same old stuff from the other forum, only now....public websites for ecclesiastical information. LOL

I have studied this area in particular, the early church, apostalic succession, the aprochrypha etc..

This is an impossiblity since what comes out is misinformation.

It is only pride that someone thinks it an attack on their person

No dice since this is a statement is a projection from its source and intelligent people know defense of the truth has nothing to do with pride.

when I repond to another poster and they feel the need to say they have won the argument,

Yes...the famous Catholic/Protestant thread in the HOC where St. Augustine and other Catholics proved Apostolic Succession and non-Catholic "Christians" ganged up with pagans and atheists and none of them could find any proof to rebuke Apostolic Succession....and the sore losers threw two-year-old fits, called names, and refused to conceded the debate...totally un-American.

what we simply have is a disagreement on history

History is history and Truth cannot contradict Truth.

where there is evidence that is ambigious,

Catholics don't have ambigious evidence as was proven time and time again in HOC forum and has been proven in this forum.

but as stated by you it is a triumph of Satan when one's pride makes them think they are superior or better than others,

Tittus didn't state anything about pride....but some will attempt any trick, any exaggeration, and any ploy to make themselves "look and feel good"....and THAT'S Satan's modus operandi.

that their faith is superior

Anyone who thinks their faith ISN'T superior is in the wrong faith and attempts to claim, WITHOUT PROOF, AGAIN, that others are wrong in knowing their faith is superior smacks of total behavioral stupidity.

or knowlege, when your knowlege comes from only one source, one cannot begin to claim non-biased learning

Those who claim to be "Christian" but base their "knowledge" on secular/public commentary and not on Christ and the Apostles is highly questionable.

or having seen all sides of the argument.

In Original Christianity there is NO argument....arguments are part and parcel with non-Original "Christians".

You are going to have to decide for yourself what you believe Tittus, but the Aprocrypha was called it by Jerome, Josephus and Pope Gregory,

What Josephus called anything regarding Christianity doesn't matter since he was a Jew.

The Apostles, St. Jerome and all the Doctors of the Church, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and all the popes of the Church, all the Church Theologians, and all the ordained priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals of the Church called/call the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS, THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS.

It is the Apostles and the Early Church...AKA...the CATHOLIC CHURCH that had them to begin with and it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH that calls them the same thing the Apostles called them.

and it's teaching lean to the mystical side

Like Christ does and like His teachings do.

as if written by the same who wrote for the Kabala, ancient Jewish mysticism.

"As if"...and no proof, of course. And, true to self-contradiction, first "some" claim the "Hebrew Bible" created by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia...the JEWISH BIBLE...is the Original Christian Bible....then, suddenly the same one erroneously claims that Catholicism is Judaism.

The Jews were the ones who wrote and held the OT, they are the ones who would know what was in the OT and what wasn't.

The Jews are the ones who attempted to censor Christianity through the Council of Jamnia with their "Hebrew Bible"...they attempted to shove it down the throats of Christians....yet NOW..."some" claim in this post that the JEWISH Kabala is the same as the Deuterocanonical Books when CHRIST referred to the Deuterocanonical Books. Amazing how some so-called "Christians" are actually Jews.

[twilly]

Tittus,

I'm counterposting on this because it contains MORE horrendous misinformation. The topic is not as simple and as easy-breezy as this poster would like it to be. In a manner of speaking, sweeping evidential information under a rug doesn't make it disappear and the FULL body of evidence and circumstances are being brought to the fore in this counter.

Here is some more info on Jerome's own words...Jerome's Influence www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/prologi.shtml

St. Jerome was not in any position to make the final decisions on canonizing. He translated and merely stated his opinion.

And, so much for courtesty regarding the website provided by this poster since she fails to provide a COMPLETE language translation. Posters need to extend the common decency of COMPLETE translations of other languages INTO English so other posters can read and fully comprehend, even if is only Latin.

And to think...on the HOC forum this poster attempted to state that the Church because the Bible had been in Latin, the Church was keeping the Bible from the average person and NOW this poster is posting Latin as some so-called "proof" of a point that was shot down centuries ago while NOT providing a COMPLETE translation. Rather contradictory.

Just the same, I read Latin and that website says NOTHING about St. Jerome totally rejecting, hands down and in no uncertain terms as he did with heretical Gnostic writings and anonymous writings that were no where near Christianity or Judeo-Christian theology since, if that had been the case, any such book would not have appeared on the prologue list. Books that met this description WERE apocryphal and on his list a couple/few of them are and he states them as such...THE REAL Apocrypha. Otherwise, the rest of the books are Old Testament Deuterocanonical Books.

In fact, at the bottom of the Latin website page is a link to the contents of the Old Testament and ALL the Deuterocanonical Books are listed in the Old Testament, of course.

A few more pointers on this Tittus:

"Deuterocanonical" means "second" and the Deuterocanonical Books are those whose Scriptural character WAS contested in SOME quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Original Bible. As a reminder, herein, the name "deuterocanonical" is used for the seven Books mentioned before--Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees, and also certain additions to Ester and David.

1) Catholics KNOW the exact history of the life of Christ, Early Church, the Faith, the lives of the Apostles, St. Jerome, at least, AND the canonization of the Books of the Original Bible, which is the Catholic Bible.

2) St. Jerome happens to have been a CATHOLIC. In the website I provided on the Doctrine of Purgatory....an Original Christian Doctrine held by Catholics and some Protestants under the term "the middle state"....St. Jerome held to the Doctrine of Purgatory, as did Pope St. Gregory the Great. All Doctrines, including the Doctrine of Purgatory, are mentioned in the New Testament BACKED by the Old Testament and that is why the ARE Doctrines. The Doctrine of Purgatory is BACKED by Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament and since St. Jerome held to the Doctrine of Purgatory, then he held to the Deuterocanonical Books even though his opinion of them wasn't as strong as other OT Books.

3) St. Jerome NEVER referred to the Deuterocanonical Books as the Apocrypha because the Apocrypha is a totally different set of books which were never canonized. In the following ENGLISH website entitled "St. Jerome", the REAL Apocrypha is never mentioned as the name of the Deuterocanonical Books.

4) In the website entitled "St. Jerome" under the heading "Characteristics of St. Jerome's Work", in the fourth paragraph down is says,

"He [St. Jerome] never either categorically acknowledges or rejects the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, AND he repeatedly made use of them".

BECAUSE St. Jerome repeatedly made use of the Deuterocanonical Books, his actions indicate that he approved of them.

5) St. Jerome was NOT a decision maker when it came to canonization of the Books that were complied into THE ORIGINAL....THE CATHOLIC...BIBLE by 400 A.D.

Now, for the website entitled "St. Jerome" AND in ENGLISH.....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405. In addition to the sacred text, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues by Jerome.

As well as the full texts of the Deuterocanonical Books because these Books were taught in the Early Church BEFORE St. Jerome was even born.

For ten centuries, these prologues were part of every Bible in the western Church,

The Bible had a prologue, and/or an introduction, and/or an index of ALL the Books in the Bible including Deuterocanonical Books and/or suppliments of them, of course.

and through these prologues many western Christians received their first exposure to the concept of apocrypha.

Most Early Christians knew nothing about the Apocrypha because they are NOT the Deuterocanonical Books...and the above paragraph is a COMMENTARIAL REMARK not a translation of the Latin website accept for the word "prologues"....the Latin website lists "prologues" which include many of the Books of the Bible, not just some of the Deuterocanonical Books, but also the Pentateuch...the first five books...Job, Kings, Psalms, Hester, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among other non-Deuterocanonical Books. What's more a prologue, as we all know, is only an introduction with or without opinion, more or less.

In addition, the New Testament had seven Deuterocanonical Books which are NOT listed in this Latin website and these Books are Hebrews, St. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalyse, AKA, the Book of Revelation.

Therefore, if Christians went along with "Mrs. Republicanism", or "jfreeism", their "religion" would have half of a "bible" at best.

The Vulgate manuscripts were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no Apocrypha section.

Of course there was no Apocrypha section because the Deuterocanonical Books are NOT the Apocrypha, they are in the Old Testament and the New Testament...LOL.

But the prologues clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal,

The prologues NEVER mention the word "apocryphal" regarding the Deuterocanonical Books. But, the books which ARE in the REAL apocrypha ARE mentioned as apocryphal.

meaning not in the canon.

Apocrypha does NOT mean "not in the canon" AT ALL. The word is Greek, it means "hidden", and it refers, at least, to the books of THE actual Apocrypa whose authors cannot be identified....that's why the word is "hidden".

In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus,

It's ALWAYS called the "Prologus Galeatus".

Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha;

However, Tittus, what St. Jerome MEANT by the "apocrypha" was THE Apocrypha, not the Deutero because he was CATHOLIC and he spoke the language of "Catholicism". Just the same, he could have very well have meant the ENTIRE New Testament, also, since IT wasn't written in Hebrew, itself, and as stated, there are seven Deutero Books in the New Testatment....but they're not Deutero because they weren't written in Hebrew but because of OTHER reasons. There were other reasons to consider certain books "apocryphal" but those reasons never applied to the OT Deuteros.

The bottom line is, the Old Testament Deuteros were part of THE Bible before St. Jerome was born. Be that as it is, St. Jerome was steeped in cultural bias just as St. Paul was and, as St. Paul, St. Jerome was entitled to an opinion, culturally biased or not.

Just the same, while scholars and theorists of that time were opining, the official attitude of the Church--the overwhelming attitude of the members of the Faithful--was always favorable to the Old and the New Testament Deuteros since the time of the Apostles, themselves, and because of this, for 400 years before the canonization of the Bible the members of all the churches kept the majestic tenor of the Old Testament Deutero.

Now, Tittus, notice the time line with respect to St. Jerome's completion of his translation in 405 and two important Church documents:

1) The Decretal [Decree] of Gelasius in 382 [compared with 405] is the official Decree which states "de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", which means "regarding the books recieved and not recieved", and this decree accepted the Old Testament with its Deutero and the New Testament with its Deutero, and....

2) The Canon of 405 [same year St. Jerome finished his translations] sent from Pope Innocent I to a Gallican bishop in answer to the bishop's inquiry regarding the contents of the Old Testament.

Both of the above mentioned documents contain all the Deuteros of the Old Testament without any distinction and these documents are identical with the catalogue of the Council of Trent, which took place from 1545 through 1563. In other words, as stated, the Deuteros were part of the Old Testament before St. Jerome was born and, also as stated, St. Jerome was entitled to his opinion BUT that didn't change Sacred Scripture and/or the final decisions on what was actually canonized.

he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon".

They were not in the Palestinian HEBREW Canon is what St. Jerome meant since the INDEX of Early Christian Canon...the Catholic Canon and the ONLY Canon... had not been completely written down at the time St. Jerome said this. This is exactly like that quip in the other misinformation post, "salvation by works" when it's SALVATION BY WORKS OF THE [JEWISH] LAW, and NOT works of charity by the Holy Spirit.

Be that as it is, Christ and the Apostles referred to the OT Deutero which was part of the canonized Alexandrian Greek Jewish Bible, at the very least. In addition, Biblical scholars such as Nickes, Movers, Danko, Kaulen and Muller advocated the view that the original Palestinian Hebrew Bible included all the Deuteros and so they WERE in the Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ and the Apostles. However, when the Early Church included them in the Old Testament, the Deuteros were put under ban by Jerusalem scribes who had also become hostile towards the Alexandrian Greek Jews because of the Greek Jews' largeness of spirit and their translation of the Deuteros into Greek. And, so, contrary to the falsehoods that circulate regarding the Early Christians, they did NOT "steal" the OT from the Jerusalem Jews but, instead, the Alexandrian Greek Jews translated the Hebrew OT with the Deuteros into Greek and circulated it.

The scholars mentioned above place much reliance on St. Justin Martyr's statement that the Palestinian Jews had mutilated Holy Writ in reference to their censorship of the OT Deuteros. They also adduce this from the fact that certain of these Deutero Books were quoted with veneration, and even in a few cases as Scriptural, by Palestinian and Babylonian doctors.

As per the statement that Christ and the Apostles referred to the Deuteros compare the following Books of the OT with the NT because they are close in relationship to thought and, in some cases, also of language....words:

Between I Peter 1:6-7 and Wisdom 3: 5-6; between Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7: 26-27; between 1 Corin. 10: 9-10 and Judith 8:24-25; and between 1 Corin. 6: 13 and Ecclesiasticus 36:20.

In addition and with much weight, the NT undoubtedly shows a "preference" for the Septuagint, which is the first and most ancient translation of the Hebrew OT made into popular Greek before the Christian Era. Because the Septguagint is the most ancient, it is the most valuable to critics for understanding and correcting Hebrew text because it appears the Hebrew text was corrupted, it had additions placed into it, it had omissions, and there were many apparent transpositions.

See the website "Septuagint".....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha.

That's exactly what he meant..."apocryphal"...translated from "Catholicism" it means THE Apocrypha and Esdras 3 and 4 ARE aprocyrphal, St. Jerome stated it exactly as it is with regard to these two Books....and this proves my point.

In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon".

This is a gross error and the Latin does not state this nor does it imply this. The reason is, the word "pseudepigraphos", which means "inscribed with a false name", is a description St. Jerome gave to the last chapter of the Book of Baruch and, therefore, the Book of "Jesus son of Sirach" and the Book of "Wisdom" are obviously NOT the Books to which St. Jerome gave this description. He gave the last chapter in the Book of Baruch this description because it is entitled "Jeremiah" but it was written by the disciple of Jeremiah who was Baruch. Be that as it is, an important study of Holy Writ proves that, despite the erroreous assertions of Protestants to the contrary, the Book of Baruch, including the last chapter, has ALWAYS been recognized as an inspired work written in Hebrew.

In addition, after the temple of Jerusalem had been plundered by Nebachadnezzar [599 B.C.], Baruch wrote under the dictation of Jeremiah, the oracle of the great prophet foretelling the return of the Babylonians and Baruch read it at the risk of his life in the hearing of it by the Jewish people.

Here is the website entitle "Baruch"....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/02319c.htm


The "Jesus" of the Book "Jesus son of Sirach", also known as "Ecclesiasticus", is not Jesus Christ. Most critics were of the mind that the primitive language of this book was Hebrew. Thererfore, it was written in Hebrew, by a Hebrew, for Hebrews to read. Fragments of the Book were brought from the East to Cambridge, England in 1896, they were identified, and the findings were published in "The Expositor".

Here is the website entitled "Ecclesiasticus"......

www.newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm


Of the Book of "Wisdom", it was once held that the author was Zorobabel, but it's not known whether or not this Jewish leader wrote in Greek. In actuality, the author is really unknown, except that he was an Alexandrian Greek Jew and the time of the writing is between B.C. 221 and 117 or shority afterward. A German translation of 1900, which must be Protestant, entitles it "Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen", which is exactly where the false attribution of the description of the book to St. Jerome is readily traced.

The substantiation of the book is based in part on the fact of its superiority to anything found in Palestine. The Doctrine of the book is in perfect tenor with the Old Testament, it has God's Fingerprints all over it because it tell of the one God, the God of the universe, the Yahweh of the Hebrews, a living God, having made man in His Own Image, creating him for immortality. The only gripe the Protestants have against the book is ONE verse in which the author states the pre-existence of the human soul, BUT, this passage is erroneously singled out and made criminal by the Protestants, but when it is viewed in the light of its CONTEXT, it yields a perfectly orthodox sense.

Here is the website entitled the "Book of Wisdom".....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/15666a.htm

He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the books of the Machabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

The designation of "canonical" does not necessarily and/or automatically mean "canonized". This statement of St. Jerome's is merely a "point-in-time" reference to the "tracking" of the Deuteros of the OT, as in what "stage is it in at present"....and, as per above, all the Deuteros were "received" by the Decree of Gelasius in 382.

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as an apocryphon,

He doesn't implicity refer to it as an apocryphon either because, in the language of Catholicism, it's a Deutero of the OT. And, again, St. Jerome proofs my point.

but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews".

Barach was written in Hebrew, dicated by the phophet Jeremiah, for Hebrews, it doesn't matter if the Palestinian Jews who surrounded St. Jerome read it or not, since most of them never recognized their own Messiah, Jesus Christ. St. Jerome pointed out the differences between the first 5 chapters of the book and the last one.

However, Tittus, Baruch wrote the last chapter in Babylon after the city was burned down, and after the 5th year in the chapter Baruch states that he went with the Jews to Jerusalem with the vessels and gifts destined for sacrificial service to Yahweh's Temple, assumed to be in Jerusalem, of course. Prehaps these are the objects used for offering and sacrifice from the Babylonian Jewish temple that had been destroyed.

The entire account is under the website entitled "Baruch", above.

In his prologue to Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the Nicene Council.

St. Jerome translated Judith because, he says, "the Synod of Nicaea [325] is said to have accounted it as Scripture" [Praef. in Lib.]; however.....no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book is discussuion of the Council, but it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times held Judith among the canonical books; thus St. Paul seems to quote the Greek text of Judith viii, 14 in 1 Corin. ii, 10 and also 1 Corin 10, 10 with Judith 8:25. In the Early Church we find it quoted as part of Scripture in the writings of St. Clement of Rome, as well as in the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

And now, in the following....we come upon a bowl of scrambled eggs. There is no source cited for all the touting about sources and there apprears to be a motive for failing to research.

Although in his Apology against Rufinus, Book II he denied the authority of the canon of the Hebrews, this caveat does not appear in the prologues themselves, nor in his prologues does he specify the authorship of the canon he describes.

St. Jerome's "Apology Against Rufinus" is like listening to someone in the next room who's on the phone....you only get information from one side...not that Rufinus' side is important to the topic, but the Apology is a serious depute between friends and St. Jerome appears to pull out all the stops. Rufinus was a non-practicing Catholic and a trouble-maker who dabbled in philosophies while going around accusing others of doing what he, himself, did.

St. Jerome did not deny the authority of any Scripture he translated and which also was canonized. In addition, St. Jerome enjoyed listening to what other's thought and he showed an interest in others and their thoughts. At times he looked into the writings of Catholics who were not practicing Catholicism and he had intellectual conversations with them, but St. Jerome, himself, was a practicing Catholic. Rufinus started trouble by taking one of St. Jerome's private papers and he circulated it with neither St. Jerome's permision NOR his knowledge. This caused St. Jerome to have to defend himself somewhat, this caused him to rethink his behavior pattern real fast...and get rid of so-called "friends", but, this was not pertainent in the least to St. Jerome's work.

Whatever its origin or authority, it was this canon without qualification which was written into the prologues of the bibles of Western Europe.

Again, there's no source, no name of this supposed "canon", and suddenly there's some far-out, misguided, 'icing-on-the-top" non-factual accusation against St. Jerome of what amounts to fraud.

Some people need to get off the conspiracy kick and get an education.

[jfree]

Titus, here is another interesting site on this information. Josephus describes the writings of the apocrypha as peculiar.

4. The Testimony of Josephus.

Josephus was a Jewish general who fought unsuccessfully against Rome in the days of the Jewish Revolt. He had heard of the Christians, but was not a Christian himself.

www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Bible04.html

He was an exstensive writer, both of the history of the Jews as well as of the things he had seen at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Writing a rebuttal to anti-Jewish propaganda in the latter part of the first century, Josephus describes the Hebrew canon of scripture which was recognized by the Jews.

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...(Contra Apion 1:8).

The same 39 books that we have in our Bible were condensed into the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible. For example, they had a single book of Samuel and of Kings and of Chronicles. The Minor Prophets were grouped together into a single book called the Twelve.

Notice that even in that day Josephus recognized that the various books of the Bible did not contradict each other. He goes on to group the books of the Scriptures into the three common divisions which we have described.

"...and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death... The prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life." (Contra Apion 1:8).

Josephus puts the number of books in the Hebrew Bible at 22 and divides them into the following categories:

(a) Moses (Torah).

(b) The Prophets (Nevi'im).

(c) Hymns & Precepts (Ketuvim).

The words of Josephus are important because they give us a point of view that is unbiased by Christianity. Specifically, he says that the Apocrypha did not have the same recognized authority because "there has not been an exact succession of prophets" since the time that the writing of the Scriptures ended.

According to Josephus, the test of authority for the Scriptures was that they were written by one who was recognized as a prophet. Who did the recognizing? The previous prophets!

But then, a day came when the last of the prophets had spoken. It was the prophet Malachi. He foretold that the Lord would come and that just prior to His coming He would be announced by Elijah. But that is not all. Notice what he has to say about the Apocrypha.

"It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes, very peculiarly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time." (Contra Apion 1:8).

Don't miss this! Josephus rejects the Apocrypha because it had not been penned by a prophet and because there had been no line of prophets who spoke and who wrote the words of God.

5. Ecclesiasticus.

This is one of the books of the Apocrypha which was written around 250 B.C. This book speaks of the division of the Scriptures into the Law and the Prophets.

6. The Council of Jamnia.

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., the Jews were scattered. The remnants of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews, moved to the ancient city of Jamnia.

In 90 A.D. a Council was held at Jamnia under the direction of Rabbi Akiba. One of the items of discussion was the recognition of the Jewish writings which were to be reckoned as authoritative.

The result of this council was that the books which make up our present Old Testament were recognized to be the Word of God. Those additional writings, such as the Apocrypha, were rejected.

We must point out that this council did not ESTABLISH the canonicity of these books, but rather RECOGNIZED the books as being God's Word.

[jfree]

Gregory the Great

Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).131

This is significant, coming as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome. This is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Gregory's comments on 1 Maccabees are from his Morals on Job. There are some who suggest that this was simply Gregory's opinion as a private theologian and that he did not write his commentary while bishop of Rome. The truth is, however, that he wrote part of his commentary prior to his position as Roman bishop while he was in Constantinople, and part while he was the pope of Rome. Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the following background on Gregory's commentary:

When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory's response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory's solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology.132

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124

The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.

www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

[tits]

I am exhausted tonight and will reply later.

Dave