The Cannon a.k.a. the Lost Books

[tits]

twilly said:

Twill, great response. You have some excellent thought behind these points.

I haven't been able to find the word "Melchizedek" in Hebrews and I don't know what verses you're referring to. However, Melchizedek means "Most High Priest" and Christ has been the Most High Priest since before He Incarnated but, you're correct to state that God's Plan was that Christ be/is the Most High Priest.

Hebrews 5 speaks of Melchizedek, but here is the reference 4:No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5: So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father." 6: And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

and the Genesis reference is found in Gen 14.

17: After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley).

18: Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19: and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

The writer of Hebrews goes on to explain that the old law was "done away" to permit the non Levitical Judahite (Jesus) to assume the position of high priest.

Your study and mine seem to agree that once the Northern Tribes were taken into captivity by Sennachib, all records of their ancestory was lost.

Ezra and then in Nehemiah we read of the locals wanting to help first rebuild the Temple in 530 b.c.. This is the reference in Ezra 4

1: When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the LORD, the God of Israel, 2:they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, "Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here."
3: But Zerubbabel, Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel answered, "You have no part with us in building a temple to our God. We alone will build it for the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, commanded us."

4: Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building. 5 They hired counselors to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia.

According to one source that I use, Nehemiah's main political rival Sanballat in identified as a Horoite in Nehemiah 2:10. According to The Bible Dictionary a paperi found in Nineviah dated to around 500 identifed Sanballat as the governor of Samaria. Further study using several unverified web sources state that these Smarians are the one who opposed Nehemiah after he rejected there offer to help. A conjunctor on my part is that these Smarians were the ancestors of the Northern Tribes.

One thing that the vast majority of Christians do not understand is the time line. If Sennachib took the Northern Tribes (the few that he did not kill) in 720ish and if Nehemiah made his rebuttal in 444, then we are looking at a period of time equal to the French and Indian War to today. How acturate are our historical records of that recent war that directly affected your peoples? Were the record keeping of those times by those peoples any better?

This brings me to a chief question that concerns the Jews directly. How long is a generation? The Levitical law cited by Nehemiah is Deut 23, therefore it is a Mishnah and not one of the 10 Statements.

2: No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

3:No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4: For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5: However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6: Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

What is a generation that would prevent the Samarians from possibly achieving an approved status by the time of Christ 430 years hense?

At the same time, the Jews HAD developed hundreds of "laws" over centuries and only certain laws applied to each group, e.g., there had been some laws that applied to only those who served in one capacity and there had been some laws that applied only to those who served in another capacity. THESE are the "laws" that weren't necessary after Christ, BUT, the Law of Moses STILL applies and it's THAT Law which Christ Fulfilled.

I had read from a source by R.C. Sproul and a similar statement by Hank Hannegraaff that the Mishnah had expanded to include anywhere from 890 to 1500 separate statements concerning the Sabbath by the time of Christ. Supposedly, that the Mishnah was reduced to oral memorization for a time between 320 to 115. It could have been that the refinement of the Levitical Law or just an accumulation of minor errors.

Thanks Twill and Jfree and Cata this is nice.

[twilly]

This is a counterpost to another ADVERTISEMENT, like the many, erroneous ads that have been posted in the HOC forum.

Gregory the Great Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604.

Pope St. Gregory the Great with the POPE between 590 and 604 and the entire world at that time knew he was the Pope.

However, perhaps it's time to refer to that non-denominational church the members call "Church of Christ" as "Grotto of Christ".

In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

His COMMENTARY of Job or on 1 Machabees is a COMMENTARY. A COMMENTARY is an OPINION, ONLY.

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly,

WE ARE NOT ACTING IRREGULARLY means: IT'S NO BIG DEAL.

if from the books, though not Canonical,

COMMENTARY....OPINION....PERSONAL THOUGHT. If Protestants can "opininate" on Catholicism, Catholics can opininate on Catholicism.

yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony.

We bring forward TESTIMONY means, WE ACCEPT WHAT WE BRING FORWARD because edification of the Church is good enough to accept Scripture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING IS A FALSIFICATION OF SACRED SCRIPTURE....

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

In 1 Macc. 6. 46, Sacred Scripture says, "And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himelf under it: and slew it, and IT FELL TO THE GROUND UPON HIM, and he died there."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is significant,

Changing the words of Sacred Scripture is deadly.

coming as it does from a bishop of Rome,

The POPE.

who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees

HE NEVER SAID, "I DENY"....He only OPINIONATED.

long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A MILLION YEARS, NO ONE, NOT EVEN A POPE, CAN CHANGE SACRED SCRIPTURE AND/OR "UN-CANONIZED" BOOKS....Luther and King James have been needing a cool drink since the 16th Century.

But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome.

NO ONE CAN CHANGE SCRIPTURE AND/OR "UN-CANONIZE" BOOKS, OPINION OR NOT. What's more, they BOTH prove that edification is a VERY good reason for canonization. In fact, edification was one of St. Jerome's own "earmarks" for canonization.

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.

AN OPINION IS NOTHING, EVEN THOUGH POPE ST. GREGORY THE GREAT DID NOT "CONTRADICT" THE CANONIZATION OF ANY BOOK.

Gregory's comments on 1 Maccabees are from his Morals on Job.

COMMENTS...OPINIONS.....COMMENTARY....OPINIONATE. IT TAKES A DICTIONARY TO LEARN ENGLISH.

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.

"Some" is the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH and the Church doesn't "suggest"....she STATES, FLAT OUT.

AND HE REVISED AND PUBLISHED "Magna Moralis", or lectures on the Book of Job, when he was a Monastery ABBOT. LOL

The truth is, however,

GET READY FOR ANOTHER UNTRUTH......

that he wrote part of his commentary

IT'S A COMMENTARY....OPINION....AND HE WASN'T A POPE AT THE TIME. AND EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, IT'S A COMMENTARY.

POPE ARE ONLY INFALLIBLE ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS....NOT ON SCRIPTURE....POPE'S CAN'T CHANGE SACRED SCRIPTURE AND/OR "UN-CANONIZE" BOOKS.

prior to his position as Roman bishop

PRIOR TO HIS REIGN AS POPE.

while he was in Constantinople, and part while he was the pope of Rome.

He wrote and published "magna Moralia" or, lectures on the Book of Job, in Constantinople between 585 and 586 when he was an ABBOT.....PUBLISHED....IN PRINT....DONE DEAL.

Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens,

Jurgens is not a Roman Catholic. Patristic Books are not canonized books.

gives the following background on Gregory's commentary: When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople,

An apocrisarius is a legate. Pope St. Gregory never served as a legate of Constantinople.

met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578,

The year he met with St. Leander was between 585 and 586.

Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job.

THE COMMENTARY....THE OPINION....was "Magna Moralia", or lectures on the Book of Job, and he REVISED and published it by 586 at the request of St. Leander. In one of Pope St. Gregory's letters [Ep., V, iii], he gives an interesting account of the work.

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 Moralis or Moralium libri Expositio in librum Iob...Exposition of Job...[seu moralium ab. xxv] of Pope St. Gregory the Great, completed in 595, is a collection of moral instruction and exhortations based on the Book of Job; Alzog [Hindbuch der Patrologie, 92] calls it a "fairly compelling repertory of morals."

When a POPE refers to any book as a reference for morally instruction, the book is RECOGNIZED AS BONA FIDE SCRIPTURE.

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.

Whatever.

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha

The Glossa Ordinaria has nothing to do with THE Apocrypha. The Gloss deals only with Sacred Scripture and it covers simple word explanations through entire COMMENTARIES....OPINIONS ONLY.

is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work.

Any books of Sacred Scripture only.

It repeats the judgment of Jerome

St. Jerome never had a "judgment'...he only had an opinion. NO ONE is permitted to write a "judgment" in a gloss.

that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books

This is a FALSEHOOD. At the time of St. Jerome, THE Apocrypha was non-permitted reading.

only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith.

THE Apocrypha is NOT Sacred Scripture and CANNOT be read for "devotion and instructions".....and there was NEVER any "instructions in MANNERS".

However, the Deuterocanonical Books are EXACTLY like the other Books in the Bilbe....they're for devotion, instruction of Faith and morals, and they are part of DOGMA and DOCTRINE.

What's more there are no "controversies in matter of Faith" in the Roman Catholic Church. Controversies in matters of faith belongs only to non-Catholics.

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,

THE Apocrypha is NOT in the Old Testament.

it prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon;

He never wrote that Tobias is NOT in the Old Testament and the Latin Library website proves thisl.

here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.

He never wrote that Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Machabees I and II, and Baruch are not in the Old Testament and the Latin Library website proves this.

These prologues to the Old Testament

THE PROLOGUES ARE OPINIONS.

and Apocryphal books

THE Apocryahal books are NOT in the Old Testament.

repeated the words of Jerome.

No, they don't and the Latin Library website proves he calls the books that ARE "apocryrphal" Apocryphal and he doesn't call Tobias, Judith, Brauch, Wisdom, Machabees I and II, and Esscleisasticus "apocryrphal".

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.

Walafrid Strabo lived in the NINTH CENTURY...the mid-850s, to be exact...NOT the tenth century. Therefore, this is another lie. Be that as it is, he was a Latin Benedictine Monk, a COMMENTATOR....OPINION, ONLY.

When making the foolish move of wasting time attempting to disprove the Roman Catholic Church, the very worse approach is to "quote" a Catholic Saint, a Pope, a Doctor, a Catholic priest, and/or a Catholic monk.

It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:

THE Apocryphal IS non-canonical....but the DEUTEROCANONICALS are canonical.

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,

Exactly. Equal VENERATION doesn't mean LACK OF veneration.

not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books,

This post is perfect proof of what Srabo meant. THE Apocrypha IS non-canonical.

the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha.

Exactly what Srabo meant...THE Apocrypha since there were people in HIS time who thought THE Apocryphal books ARE THE Bible. And....this is WHY THE Councils HAD to CLARIFIY THE Books of THE Bible.

Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned;

Man....was HE right!

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.

"AND"....and in the English language, he's referring to TWO concepts.

Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical,

THE canonical and THE apocryphal.

among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.

''AMONG WHICH" there is a FURTHER DISTINCTION...and NOW there are THREE or MORE distinctions.

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit.

ALL the Books in THE Bible.

It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced.

"At which time" is one category, and OR "by which authors is ANOTHER category...and these two separate categories can apply to certain canonicals and/or certain of THE apocrypha.

In addition, Srabo is saying....the "non-canonical" OR...in other words, THE "apocryphal".

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.

NOW, he's referring to the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS...the THIRD TYPE.

Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention,

The only "groups" that experience doubt and contention are non-Catholic. What's more, the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS are the DEUTEROS....which means SECOND. They are NOT the FIRST, they are the SECOND, AND they are NOT THE apocrypha.

or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.

CONTRADICTION.....First Judith isn't, in other "such posts" and now Judith IS. Judith is a DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOK and Solomon is NOT...YET, they have just been LUMPED together as non-Deuterocanonical. Since Strabo would NOT have made THAT mistake, the post is suspect, highly questionable, and GARBAGE.

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.

AND, the Deuterocanonicals ARE CANONICAL....the proof is in THE NAME. The are the SECOND CANONICALS.

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,

And here Srabo gives the perfect definition of TRADITION and ORAL TEACHING. Not every writer of the Books of the Bible was a teacher. They had all kinds of occupations. Therefore, because Srabo uses the exact occupational name "teacher", he means Christ, the Apostles, the Magestrium, the Early Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the Popes, the bishops, the priests, and the catechists....as well as any given writer of the Bible who just happened to have been a teacher.

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.

And, he describes EXACTLY what FIRST and SECOND canonical means since ALL the Books in THE Bible contain nothing false.....unlike this post, of course.

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.

EXACTLY...since St. Augustine had no problems, at all, with ALL the Books, including the Dueteros.

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.

Right on, St. Augustine! He means ANY given manuscript, first of all, because he's explaning how he works. He suspects, first. Then he states..."or I wonder"...then, "or", and he realizes there could well be more that even HE has yet to understand.

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

In other words, "I read learned and pious writers...other commentators....not as if what they say is true, but because they convince me from the authors or from good defense, that what is written agrees with the truth."

Another right on, St. Augustine!

The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125

Right......

and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126

Neither St. Augustine nor Scrabo stated this since THE Apocrphals are NOT in the Old Testament and, therefore, they're NOT in the Prologues of the Old Testament.

all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome.

NO ONE with any brains said this since in St. Jerome's capacity as TRANSLATOR, he didn't teach and he had NO authority to do so in that capacity.

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.

Whether official or not....it's COMMENTARY, not FACT.

Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole,

NO IT DOESN'T REPRESENT THE OVERVIEW OF ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S OPINION.

demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church.

Someone's "wish list"....LOL The decisions of the Councils, followed by the NOD of the Pope, and the official letters of the Popes COUNT and COMMENTARY, one way or the other, pounds salt.

We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states

The website posted, which I eliminated in this counter, is NOT any kind of "Catholic Encyclopedia". It's just another "pulp site" owned by some unknown Weber character. Posting blatant falsehoods is unmistakeable proof that a poster's "position" is non-existant and ANYONE who does this AND "claims" to be "a Christian" is posting more falsehoods.

that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.

As the entire world knows, THE Original Bible was COMPILED by St. Jerome before 400 A.D. THAT was official enough at that time, that was the way it was done THEN, and nothing further needed to be done until the 16th Century when the heretic, Luther, HAD to be set straight in no uncertain terms and for all time.

This action on the part of the Church is known as DEFINITION and CLAIRIFICATION of existing documents and documentation,
it goes on at EVERY level of law, including PROPER ecclesiastical law, and the existing documentation and documents are known as "prior order" or PRECEDENCE. This is the way it's always been, it's the way it is, and it's the way it always will be. Whoever can't live with the facts of life will just have to lump it.

[101ABN]

"Political ambitions on the part of the so-called "reformers", 101, plain and simple. It's all over the pages of 16th Century European history. "

"I know all the reasons that are given for the reformers coming into the picture. None of them are good enough to split Christondom. Christianity is the greatest thing toever happen to our Earth. The reformers tore it apart."

It's a little disturbing to see people who can't look to their own history and recognizing how certain actions might have been the catalyst for revolution or reformation.

We expect that of governments.

Should the Church be held to a lower standard?

[twilly]

I know all the reasons that are given for the reformers coming into the picture. None of them are good enough to split Christondom. Christianity is the greatest thing toever happen to our Earth. The reformers tore it apart.

Yep....NONE of the reasons the revolters had were good enough.

It's a little disturbing to see people who can't look to their own history and recognizing how certain actions might have been the catalyst for revolution or reformation.

Pure, political revolt at the dawn of the European emergence of nations.

We expect that of governments.

Mixing ecclesiastical government with secular government doesn't work.

Should the Church be held to a lower standard?

The Church won't permit herself to be lowered to secularism. That's why the heretic, Luther, and the murdering schimatic, Henry VIII, ended up getting themselves excommunicated.

[twilly]

jfree,
We were discussing the canon of the Bible and from this you have given me a history of Christianity strictly from the Protestant side. Not only that, but you have proved nothing, shown nothing. All that writing and all it really says is "The Protestant side is the right side". Sorry, I accept nothing of what you have writen. It sounds like a nice fairy tale. Let me know when you want to get down to brass tacks.

Cataracts

Same "stuff", different forum...LOL

Hey...did you get a look at the pure malice posted in Free Rider's thread, "THC Christianity forum quick start guide". It's under the same main truck of threads as this thread is and it's the third one down from this one, at present. And, it looks like it's "wipe your feet" when leaving this thread, also.

[101ABN]

Yep....NONE of the reasons the revolters had were good enough.

In YOUR opinion

Pure, political revolt at the dawn of the European emergence of nations.

Again...In YOUR opinion but you missed the point.

Let's try again...

"It's a little disturbing to see people who can't look to their own history and recognizing how certain actions might have been the catalyst for revolution or reformation."

This refers to tha actions and positions of the Church, not to the responses of the reformers.

"Mixing ecclesiastical government with secular government doesn't work."

No one such a mix. Please try again.

"The Church won't permit herself to be lowered to secularism. That's why the heretic, Luther, and the murdering schimatic, Henry VIII, ended up getting themselves excommunicated."

That didn't answer my question.

The question was, should the Church be held to a lower standard than governments? (Or nations, if that is better understood)

Luther and Henry have long since been judged by their Creator.

[twilly]

Hi, Tittus.

Hebrews 5 speaks of Melchizedek, but here is the reference 4:No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5: So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." 6: And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

and the Genesis reference is found in Gen 14.

17: After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley).

18: Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19: and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

The writer of Hebrews goes on to explain that the old law was "done away" to permit the non Levitical Judahite (Jesus) to assume the position of high priest.

Thanks for pointing out Hebrews 5. I went into the Scripture and clicked on the name "Melcheisedech" and I was reminded of all that has "escaped" me for a number of years.

Melcheisedech is very mysterious and the reason why the "tribes" were "exchanged"...or as you say, one was "done away" ...was to point to an "elevating" of the "office" of Christ's unique, mystical priesthood.

I checked out Genesis 14, also...Yep! There's another tie-in point and there's also Hebrews 7:3, 6; Psalm 109:4: and Hebrews 6:20.

Go to this website, "Melchisedech", and read it ALL.....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm

Your study and mine seem to agree that once the Northern Tribes were taken into captivity by Sennachib, all records of their ancestory was lost.

...however, as I posted, it's a pretty safe bet that the Jews who ended up in South Russian are the descendants of the Northern Tribes.

Ezra and then in Nehemiah we read of the locals wanting to help first rebuild the Temple in 530 b.c.. This is the reference in Ezra 4

1: When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the LORD, the God of Israel, 2:they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, "Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here."
3: But Zerubbabel, Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel answered, "You have no part with us in building a temple to our God. We alone will build it for the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, commanded us."

We're practically word-for-word.

4: Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building. 5 They hired counselors to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Those are the next two verses I have, also.

According to one source that I use, Nehemiah's main political rival Sanballat in identified as a Horoite in Nehemiah 2:10. According to The Bible Dictionary a paperi found in Nineviah dated to around 500 identifed Sanballat as the governor of Samaria. Further study using several unverified web sources state that these Smarians are the one who opposed Nehemiah after he rejected there offer to help. A conjunctor on my part is that these Smarians were the ancestors of the Northern Tribes.

They are but, only in part, because they intermarried with "foreigners" who entered the land of the Northern Tribes after the tribes were exiled....so, their geneology got messed up. The identity is from the mother and if a person's mother isn't Jewish, they're not Jewish. Zorobabel couldn't take a chance.

One thing that the vast majority of Christians do not understand is the time line.

You've got THAT right!

If Sennachib took the Northern Tribes (the few that he did not kill) in 720ish and if Nehemiah made his rebuttal in 444, then we are looking at a period of time equal to the French and Indian War to today. How acturate are our historical records of that recent war that directly affected your peoples?

Funny you should ask this....I'm Seneca and the French, American and English fighting got the Seneca involved and they backed the wrong horse. The entire history is extremely accurate.

Were the record keeping of those times by those peoples any better?

According to what I've been reading...yes. Those exiled into Babylon continued keeping records. They weren't complete slaves, they had a measure of freedom, they built their own homes, had their own gardens, and being exiled made them realized they needed to get back in with Yahweh, and they did. They were sufficiently humbled to realize the mistakes they made and since they didn't have a temple and external rituals, they worshiped together in homes, this practice was the beginning of the future synagogues, they became more closely knit...more cohesive, and they became happier. By the time they returned to Jerusalem, they had matured in their faith. The Babylonian Exile was an important turning point in Judaism and it made all the difference for the future Messiah.

This brings me to a chief question that concerns the Jews directly. How long is a generation? The Levitical law cited by Nehemiah is Deut 23, therefore it is a Mishnah and not one of the 10 Statements.

There were different ways they referred to a person, for starters. A name could be an individual, a tribe, or even a county. Also, more primitive people who were serious about lineage had very good memories and they kept oral tradition going on all the time.

I don't know if this will help but, here's a site entitled "Geneology (in the Bible)", and maybe it can lead you to more information.....

newadvent.org/cathen/06408a.htm

Also.....

It could be that the reason why they lived longer is because there had been more cloud coverage for the Earth back then, which protected them more from the Sun....just a thought. Be that as it may, the generational time period was longer.

2: No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

Their laws were very stringent and they had to be. Everything had to fit just right in order for Christ to be descended properly...and God saw to it that it was, one way or the other.

3:No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4: For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.

That behavior would be enough to cause them not to be welcome.

5: However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6: Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

They were like Cain, but there were tribes of Cains.

What is a generation that would prevent the Samarians from possibly achieving an approved status by the time of Christ 430 years hense?

Again, funny you ask....Christ spoke with the Samaritan...it's SAMARITAN....woman at the well. He told her things about herself she KNEW He couldn't possibily know. She said to Him that He MUST be the Promised Messiah and He told her that she was talking to the Messiah. She was so "blown away", she went home and told everyone, and she was happy for the rest of her life, no doubt. The Apostle St. Philip was their bishop...the bishop to the Samaritans, BTW.

At the same time, the Jews HAD developed hundreds of "laws" over centuries and only certain laws applied to each group, e.g., there had been some laws that applied to only those who served in one capacity and there had been some laws that applied only to those who served in another capacity. THESE are the "laws" that weren't necessary after Christ, BUT, the Law of Moses STILL applies and it's THAT Law which Christ Fulfilled.[

I had read from a source by R.C. Sproul and a similar statement by Hank Hannegraaff that the Mishnah had expanded to include anywhere from 890 to 1500 separate statements concerning the Sabbath by the time of Christ. Supposedly, that the Mishnah was reduced to oral memorization for a time between 320 to 115. It could have been that the refinement of the Levitical Law or just an accumulation of minor errors.

Some Jewish friends stated they have 631 laws, or something like that, but, as I stated, each person only goes by the law that apply to them in their "station" in life.

Thanks Twill this is nice.

You BET IT IS! And, did you know, archeologists have found the cities of Sodom and Gommorah?

[jfree]

The cataracts are still there, the info posted was from Professors not Pastors or Preachers or Priests, it is the historic side, the side of provable history, not a sectarian agenda. That is the brass tacs and the facts.

But you still have provided no history yourself to prove either side.

For Twilly, do you remember the infallibility thread, what is it that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in again.....

[twilly]

For Twilly, do you remember the infallibility thread, what is it that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in again.....

Look it up. Hint: He could be totally wrong and still more right than your posts.

[twilly]

Yep....NONE of the reasons the revolters had was good enough.

In YOUR opinion

In YOUR opinion of my statement, which is not without merit.

Pure, political revolt at the dawn of the European emergence of nations.

Again...In YOUR opinion but you missed the point.

Again..in YOUR opinion of my statement, which is also not without merit, but I figured what your point was and still is.

Let's try again...

With the gigantic smorgasbord of other OPINION posted in this thread, you pick a small salad.

It's a little disturbing to see people who can't look to their own history and recognizing how certain actions might have been the catalyst for revolution or reformation.

Odd what some find disturbing. I've studied the history. You'll be viewing some counters, herein, I hope.

This refers to tha actions and positions of the Church, not to the responses of the reformers.

And...as per above.

"Mixing ecclesiastical government with secular government doesn't work."

No one such a mix. Please try again.

If I understand correctly, there are MORE than one such a mix and separation of Church and state is the best of all worlds.

"The Church won't permit herself to be lowered to secularism. That's why the heretic, Luther, and the murdering schimatic, Henry VIII, ended up getting themselves excommunicated."

That didn't answer my question.

Moi? I've made statements which aren't without merit. What answer are you looking for?....and I'll see if I agree.

The question was, should the Church be held to a lower standard than governments? (Or nations, if that is better understood)

More information is requested. Who should hold the Church to whatever level? And, according to who's standard?

Luther and Henry have long since been judged by their Creator.

No doubt, in the least. Still, in all, history is judged by everyone.

Be that as it is, in response to the above, since both of them are Catholics, as a Catholic, I'm permitted within Catholicism to hazard a discerning guess.

[twilly]

No need to apologize, you are firm in your beliefs and I in mine. I was simply saying that many may get insulted by the fact one does not think they are correct or by the light of history that disclaims their own beliefs.

History supports the facts.

I have seen the evidence given for the Apostalic succession, simple statements about passing on the word of God are twisted into something they are not.

That's not a description of the evidence. It was posted very nicely three times over on the Catholic/Protestant thread and, printed out, it's 7 pages long, and includes the favorable testimonies of Protestant experts.

I have asked for real evidence and there is none, no more than there is evidence that Peter was Pope. If you have some let me know, if I am wrong I would like to know.

Evidence accepted by the experts for centuries from the First & Second Century, St. Peter's Primacy, and the Primacy of the Roman Church was posted. However, those who admit to viewing it and continue to post that they'd like to know don't want to know.

The post from PBS is not conjecture

Well, then...if AS in the Catholic Church is NOT so, present the empirical facts that....PBS??? has? And, if they have disproved AS, then why hasn't this information been shared with the world? Many people attempted to disprove AS for centuries but all of them have failed to provide empirical facts. One would think that whoever has these facts would jump at the chance to provide them. The facts would make them very well-known.

but writings from three Professors whose job it is to study the evolution of theology.

If these professors, whose job it is to study the evolution??? of theology, have empirical evidence, why hasn't the evidence done the job it's supposed to do and disprove AS in the Catholic Church? Surely these professors would bring their overwhelming evidence to the attention of the Church and the world since this is their job.

I had this discussion on THC, by the time of the Nicene Council there were an estimated 90 different sects of Christianity.

This discussion proved no empirical evidence to support such a number by names, locations, any type of associated history with other known groups of that time or any other time. Therefore, there mustn 't be empirical evidence for these scores and scores of.....sects? Of course, as we know, if any of them existed, none of them survived.

Christianity was not one religion, one sect w/a ruling heirarchy

Given the documented and empirical evidence held by the Catholic Church, which is admitted to, those who now nay-say, simply need to provide the evidence.

the Nicene Council was brought about by the Pontificus Maximus/Pope of Rome and Emporer Constantine,

The world knows this since it's history. But this is not empirical evidence against AS in the least..

it is his title now attributed to People who were listed as Pope prior to his council and prior to there even being a Pope in christianity, prior to the existence of Catholicism.

This statement is far from empirical evidence against AS, St. Peter's Primacy, and the Primacy of the Roman Church, especially since the accepted evidence favors the existence of Catholicism from Christ through the Apostles and down through the centuries for over 2,000 years. Those who have brought this up again, and without empirical evidence supporting claims must now provide the necessary counter evidence.

These are the reasons I do not believe in the RCC.

Again, these are merely unsupported claims and they can only be opinion not backed by the facts, since the empirical evidence favors the Roman Catholic Church and has done so for centuries.

As we all well know if you questioned dogma, you would likely be called heretic

In order to be able to question dogma one has to know the dogma. And, again, as we all well know, only those who are members of any given church can make themselves heretics of that church.

and soon find your body detached from your head or the like,

This, in no way, supports opinion regarding the facts, presuming one's head is attached, to begin with.

so yes there was one major sect for a long time,

This is a slight improvement over opinions this past April in the HOC forum. Be that as it may, the empirical evidence and history prove a multi-regional Church which grew at a phenomenal rate and the proof of that Church is documented in THAT very Church, the RCC.

not out of devotion or truthfulness, but out of fear of death,

The evidence of record doesn't support opinion on this.

though not for 1600yrs lest we forget the Orthodox churches, or the Egytian Copts who seperated very early in history.

The evidence in no way agrees with opinion of the time line and the schims in no way disprove AS, the Primacy of St. Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. In addtion, the writings of Early Church Fathers don't support you claim....famous men such as St. Clement [28-101 AD]. St. Polycarp [69-155 AD], St. Ignatius [35-107 AD], St. Justin Martyr [80-165 AD], St. Irenaeus [130-200 AD], and St. Augustine [354-430 AD], for starters.

The reformation was brought about because of the abuses, the selling of indulgences and all the rest of the reasons nailed to that door in Germany,

It was "brought about" because Luther chose to be part of whatever difficulties there were, instead of part of the solutions. The abuses have been exaggerated, and this has been proved by lack of evidence in support of the constant, unjust accusations. As an ordained priest, Luther's first duty was to God and to the Church he vowed to God to serve Christ through.

Be that as it is, opinions are not empirical evidence disproving AS, the Primacy of St. Peter, and the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, it's a fact of history that the Protestant Revolt was supported by the political and social changes and upheavals of the era, regardless of the personalities and their individual problems and complaints.

the church of England is seperate from the reformation, I see it referenced often when people speak of reformation, but other than to encourage others to have the guts to leave it had little bearing on the reformation.

The time line and the historical facts lean heavily in favor of Henry VIII using whatever and whomever he thought would favor his personal plans. One must ask how much guts does it really take to decapitate others and enjoy it.

And be THAT as it is, it does not disprove the facts of AS, the Primacy of St. Peter, and the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, Henry was a coronated and consecrated Catholic monarch and the horribily depraved state which he allowed to prevail in his jurisdiction and the fact that he, alone, was responsible for the slaughter of thousands of his Divinely entrusted subjects, only because they wouldn't join his secular church, serves to prove the revolt was the means to the end for the political, social, se*xual, and personal interest of a meglomaniac.

The time line in this post is far from chronological. The next date goes back, again, 1200 years. Therefore, I will continue with the remainder of this counter in subsequent posts, even though nothing remaining proves any of the unsubstantialed claims.

Empirical evidence going back to 28 AD and which satisfactorily disproves AS, the Primacy of St. Peter, and the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church is either provided, or opinion is all this post amounts to.

[tits]

THE Apocrypha is NOT Sacred Scripture and CANNOT be read for "devotion and instructions".....and there was NEVER any "instructions in MANNERS".

Yes, I agree. The Apocrypha reminds me of the Mishrah (the 613 laws given by Moses). These are kept in the Talmud. By the time of Christ, the Mishrah had become a huge codex of don'ts" that were used to measure an individual's faith.

If we can agree that Hebrews is a verifiable Canon book, then we can see in Hebrews 7-10 that the Law (the 10 Statements (as the Torah identifies them) and the 40 refinements given by Moses in Leviticus 18-23, are superficial guidance. The writer of Hebrews states that with Christ the blood sacrifice of all times. As opposed to the Law where "forgiveness" acts where required in the Mishrah for various violations of acting faithful.

Could the Apocrypha be for what Paul wrote to Timothy: 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

This brings me back to the original question. How did the Council decide which writings were to be included in the Canon? Almost all of the books that we have in the Protestant Bible were written before any of the Gospels were pinned. I can imagine John Mark discussing much of his research as he traveled with Paul, Titus, Timothy, and the rest. HOWEVER ...

The singularity of the message of 27 books shows the Holy Spirit's hand.

Twill, what books are in the Catholic New Testament that are not in the Protestant?

[cataracts]

admin said:

"Political ambitions on the part of the so-called "reformers", 101, plain and simple. It's all over the pages of 16th Century European history. "

"I know all the reasons that are given for the reformers coming into the picture. None of them are good enough to split Christondom. Christianity is the greatest thing toever happen to our Earth. The reformers tore it apart."

It's a little disturbing to see people who can't look to their own history and recognizing how certain actions might have been the catalyst for revolution or reformation.

We expect that of governments.

Should the Church be held to a lower standard?

Sorry 101, but even if the antics of the 16th Century Catholic Church were a "catalyst", Luther was completely out of bounds.
The purpose of the Church is to help people get to Heaven. During this time there were more than just a few greedy priests and bishops. I really don't know how many there were. Being men they were seduced by the dark side of the 16th Century. So what?---The Church was in place and still behaving as a Church. It's not the first time elements (people) in the Church behaved in a secular manner. The millions of Catholics still had Mass and the Sacraments. There's no doubt in my mind that God would have taken care of those errant priests and bishops.

What did Luther and his minions do? They started their own Church different than the one Jesus had founded. Not even Jesus founded the Church on His own say so and of His own volition. He was sent by His Father. Who sent Luther? No one!! Mr. big shot Luther sent himself. Mr Luther was upset with the Catholic Church, so he formed his own church. Do you see any parallels between him and the liberals of today.

So what are the effects of Luther and the other protesters forming their own churches? They didn't hurt the Catholic Church. We still have everything we started with. What they did do is to totally lead astray all the men, women, and children who secumbed to their nauseating salesmanship. All these millions of people were seperated from the Mass and the Sacraments of the one true Church. They were seperated from the truth taught by the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

What excuse did Mr. Luther have? His answer is: there were priests cheating members of the laity. I have news for Luther and anyone who thinks what he did was correct. It is simply "not" good enough for running a cleaver through Christondom. On the one hand your speaking of money lost and on the other hand we're speaking of eternity in Heaven lost forever. Luther did no good service to his ignorant followers. They traded a few dollars for life eternal.
Please don't misunderstand my last sentance. I am not judging anyone. God will decide on who get's to Heaven and who doesn't. For the Protestants it has become extremely more difficult.

Cataracts

[twilly]

Cataracts,

Excellent post on the devastating consequences of the Protestant Revolt.

[twilly]

Hello, Tittus.

Again, you have created a very interesting post. It has sent me researching....that's what a great post does. I apologize for not responding sooner. Between thorougly researching for reply and life's every-day needs to fulfill, I felt it best to return when I was fully prepared to respond well to your deserving post and after mundane matters were no longer on my mind.

I'm glad we are discussing the New Testament because the Books of the New Testament are, for the most part, the same books in both Catholicism and the mainline Protestantisms.

THE Apocrypha is NOT Sacred Scripture and CANNOT be read for "devotion and instructions".....and there was NEVER any "instructions in MANNERS".

Tittus responded........

Yes, I agree. The Apocrypha reminds me of the Mishrah (the 613 laws given by Moses). These are kept in the Talmud. By the time of Christ, the Mishrah had become a huge codex of don'ts" that were used to measure an individual's faith.

Those 613 laws were what I was referring to before. I didn't know which book(s) they were written in so, thanks for the information.

When I speak of The Aprocrypha which relates to the New Testament, I refer to the early "Christian" writings whose authors cannot be identified, even though the author claims a "name", AND whose writings, which from the earliest Church Fathers of the Apostolic Age [ended A.D. 100] and forward, are not inspired, as well as all the writings of Gnostic literature. Some of these writings popped up in various regions clear into the last of the Second Century.

All these writings...this body of literature....HAD to be clearly distinguished from the writings that are inspired, which are the first and deutero [secondary] levels and are considered inspired for various other reasons. And, yes, as with the Old Testament, the New Testament is comprised of canonical AND seven deutero-canonical books.

In addition, there are bodies of writings, as per above, known as apocryphal associated with each of the two Testaments. Beside the fact they are not inspired at either the canonical or deuterocanonical levels, those associated with the OT were written by Jews, for the most part because they were written BEFORE Christ, and those associated with the NT were written either by Christians or by Gnostics and other heretical Christians or those who were members of non-Christian belief systems such as Jews and pagans.

And example of these uninspired writings is the apocryphon Gospel of Thomas, a piece of badly fragmented Gnostic literature.

For your convenience in the categorization of apocraphal writings associated with the NT, I offer the website, "Apocrapha".....

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Tittus continued.........

If we can agree that Hebrews is a verifiable Canon book, then we can see in Hebrews 7-10 that the Law (the 10 Statements (as the Torah identifies them) and the 40 refinements given by Moses in Leviticus 18-23, are superficial guidance.

I will begin with Hebrews and then go back to Leviticus.

Hebrews is a New Testament deuterocanonical book. In other words, as per above, it is inspired, it is written by an Apostle, for sure, and it is in the deutero, the secondary, level of the Canon Books of the NT. Therefore, YES, we...and the Church Fathers....can totally agree that Hebrews....the Epistle to the Hebrews as in the NT...is a Canon Book. However, Luther omitted Hebrews from his New Testament.

Hebrews was always quoted and used since the earliest of Christian Teaching from the Apostles forward. As with all the Books of the NT, Christ did not sit down and write them... disciples did, and St. Mark and St. Luke also helped out the Apostles in this, and the writings were completed IN the Apostolic Age, which ended in A.D. 100 when St. John passed on, and St. John was the last one of the Apostles and the last one of the Evangelists to pass on.

Therefore, Christ and the Apostles, while they were alive, established the Tradition of Oral Teaching. It's amazing that there are some who can't seem to grasp the fact that the Bible did NOT "magically appear" when Christ began His Ministry. The writings of the NT started to be written AFTER Christ Ascended and AFTER He sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost.

Because Hebrews, as with all the other NT Books, was quoted and used in Oral Teaching, by the time of the Roman Synod of 382, it was deemed the 14th Epistle of St. Paul's 14 Epistles. Notice the time line.....382 was BEFORE St. Jerome completed translation of the New Testament Books just before 400, AND, St. Jerome knew Hebrews is a canonical...deuterocanonical...book. The same situation existed regarding the seven Deuterocanonical Books of the OT....they were quoted in Oral Teachings, referred to in the NT and in Christian writings, they were never questioned by the majority of Christians, including Doctors, bishops, priests, AND the popes and, therefore, they were part of Tradition, and for these reasons they are "secondary"...deutero....canon.

To aid you in all the information/history on Hebrews, I provide the website "Epistle to the Hebrews......

www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

To continue now with the Chapters you mention in Hebrews [7-10] and with a summary of the contents of each Chapter and my thoughts, interspersed with one of the statements of your post:

In Hebrews 7, the priesthood of of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech excels the Levitical priesthood and puts an end both to that [the Levitical priesthood] and the law. BUT, the"end of the priesthood and the law" means the END of it, not the complete destruction or complete elimination of it for HUMANS who are called to serve in the priesthood since Melchisedech pre-figures CHRIST, not humans. Again...PRE-FIGURES Christ. Much of the OT pre-figures Christ.

In addition, the Doctrine of the Son of God is, in part, based on NT verses which state Christ is the Son of God as well as OT verses such as Gen. 14:18-20 and Psalms 109:4. Regarding the formation of Doctrines, a Doctrine IS a Doctrine because verses which support it are NT verses backed by OT verses...those referred to by Christ and the Apostles...as with the herein mentioned Doctrine of the Son of God.

In Hebrews 8, there is more teaching of the priesthood of Christ and the Old Testament.

Tittus commented........

The writer of Hebrews states that with Christ the blood sacrifice of all times. As opposed to the Law where "forgiveness" acts where required in the Mishrah for various violations of acting faithful.

Yes, in Hebrews 9, the sacrifices required by the law were far inferior to that of Christ [Christ's sacrifice on the Cross so that humankind MAY have eternal life] AND Christ's sacrifice put an end to all blood sacrifices/burnt offerings. However, this is NOT "opposed to" the need to continue to act faithfully and to work WITH all that Christ does. Christianity is PRO-ACTIVE between God and humans and it's a two-way street. Christ says, "Come, follow Me", and humans who choose to follow Him must get up and a actually do it. Otherwise, a human is merely giving "lip service"....this is LUKEWARM, at best....and Christ will not recognized lip service and other forms of hypocrisy.

Forgiveness of sins through Christ is ALSO pro-active since there is NOTHING in the NT that states the residual punishment for sins...the "stain" of sin....is totally forgiven even IF the sin itself is.

In many places in the NT, the phrase "remission of sin(s)" is used, not "forgiveness of sin(s)". Remission is NOT full forgiveness. Therefore, there is a "residual". What's more, there are places in the NT that specifically state the word "purging" [of the soul]....purging of the punishment due to forgiven sin. This purging is the PURIFICATION process and this process takes place in Purgatory. Catholics are NOT the only ones to hold to Purgatory since certain Protestant denominations do, also. They call Puragtory "the middle state". Purgatory, or whatever else anyone may choose to call it, is in the NT backed by the OT and not only within the Deuterocanonical Books of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees, but also in Numbers 20:12 and 2 Samuel 12: 13-14.

In the New Testament, there is 1 Cor. 3:11-15, which says, "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build UPON his foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest: For the day of the Lord [Judgment Day] shall declare it [man's work], of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built there upon, he shall recieve a reward. If any man's work BURN, he shall suffer loss: BUT he himself shall be saved, yet so as by FIRE." "Yet so as by fire means, as by something which is likened to fire, but which is not the fires of hell, because that which is likened to this particular fire is a purifiying fire and not a condemning fire.

As far as almsgiving, mentioned in the OT as a form of penance, almsgiving is also mentioned in the NT as a form of penance, as well as fasting as a form of penance. Penance aids in the removal of the residual stain...the punishment...for sin. For example, in Mathew 3:18, Luke 17:3, 3:3, almsgiving and fasting and, in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentence.

Praywe is also a form of penance and it further aids in removing the residual stain of sin. In addition, it's no secret that Christians pray for one another, it's no secret that because of Christ there is Eternal Life, and Christians live in this life and in the next. Since ALL Christians are in the Body of Christ, since they are the collective communion of saints and all Christians on Earth as well as in Purgatory and in Heaven ARE the collective communion of saints, Christians in this life can pray for the remission of punishment for those in Purgatory, and the Saints in Heaven can, and DO, pray for Christians on Earth.

In Hebrews 10, because of the insufficiency of the sacrifice of the law, Christ our high priest shed His Blood for us, offering up once for all the sacrifice of our redemption. Redemption is only PART OF full savation, it is the "opening of the door", and as I stated herein and above, Christ sacrificed His Earthly Life so that Christians MAY have Eternal Life. No where in the Original Scripture is the word "may" the word "will" when it comes to the sacrifice of Christ. The word "will" is a Protestant change, an alteration of the Word of God and, therefore, it is NOT God's Word. God NEVER said "will" when He said "may". The reason why the word is "may" is because humans have free will and God knows this, even through the PROCESS of salvation, and humans don't HAVE to accept the process of salvation, [most don't know the process of salvation], therefore, this is the reason why God used the word MAY.

One more point on this: As per Hebrews 10, above, Christ OFFERED up....He OFFERED. God the Father was the decision maker, Christ's sacrifice had to be pleasing TO the Father, and, because of Scripture verses after the Resurrection, Christians know that God the Father was pleased. Only AFTER the Resurrection Christ breathed [released] the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles, thus transferring percentages of His Powers for the benefit of those on Earth, and this is one indication that the Father was pleased, besides the fact that Christ Resurrected...which He actually did on His own. Another indication the Father was plesed was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Just before Christ Ascended, He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, AND to the Church, and by the fact that the Holy Spirit manifested Himself on Pentecost, Christ had made it Home...He made it to Heaven because on Pentecost He DID send the Holy Spirit, Who had been in Heaven.

Now for Leviticus 18-20 and why the law was ended but not destroyed, since Christ FULFILLED it...and "fulfill" means to ADD to it:

In Leviticus 18, marriage is prohibited in certain degrees of kindred and all UNNATURAL "acts" [read what those ACTS are]. Surely Christ never said we can forget about these laws and marry a parent or other close kin.

In Leviticus 19, there is a list of ordinances, partly moral, party ceremonial or judical. Whatever yet applies is good advice, at least. For example, don't eat 3-day leftover food. Also the verse, "And a priest shall pray for him...". That still applies, for sure. It also says, do not eat blood...I agree with this "ordinance", and it says do not divine nor "observe dreams". What "nor observe dreams" means is, not to believe the average dream is from God. This I find amazing, coming as it does from Moses' time, since what the average dream is has only just been figured out through modern psychology. However, extraordinary dreams and visions were not including in this admonition since they definately listened to those types of sleep phenomena, e.g., Num. 12:6, Job 33:14, and in the New Testament, St. Joseph's dreams in Matthew 1:20, 3:13, and St. Paul's in Acts 23:11, 27:23.

In Leviticus 20, there is a list of crimes punished by death. We no longer stone/kill people for a "bent eyelash" nor for what we now consider moral transgressions. BUT, moral trangressions are still trespasses againist God. Regarding physical punishment, however, this Chapter must needs be narrowed down on this type of punishment. For instance, whereas there still exists idol worshippers and other idolater-types [worship of money, celebrities, etc.], we don't murder or personally injure these idolaters.

In Leviticus 21, there is the list of ordinances relating to the priests. Most, if not all, of these ordinances no longer apply to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. However, some may apply to the Orthdox priesthood and to the priesthoods of the Anglican Church and it's American "heretical" counterpart, the Episcopal Church.

In Leviticus 22, there is a list of who may eat the holy things and what things may be offered. The word "holocaust" means "burnt offering", not what it has come to be considered since the 1930s and 1940s. "Without blemish" does not apply because Christ is without blemish and the Sacrifice of the Mass is without blemish because of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ. However, the qualitative [quality] specifications of offerings is still used, but this value is now placed on types of prayer offerings. Also, "strangers", or those who are not members of the Church, or who are not members of certain Orthodox Churches, cannot partake of the Eucharist; in other words, they cannot receive Communion in the Catholic Church.

Leviticus 23 lists holy days of obligation and regulation of tithings. The Lord's Day is still a holy day, there are still holy days of obligation, but tithing is no longer accomplished by using harvest produce, of course. Our means of exchange has been coinage, etc., for a long time, although in some parts of the U.S. and in other countries, produce is the only ready means of exchange. And, contrary to the fairy tales told by some non-Catholics, tithing is not mandatory in the Catholic Church and if a member decides to contribute, there is no mandatory percentage of income set in stone. Also in Leviticus 23, there is a list of quantative values placed on sacrifices for sin and sacrifices for peace offerings. In the Catholic Church, the sacrifice is ONLY Christ, therefore, there is only a need to set a quantative [quantity] value regarding (1) the offering of [the performance of] penance for sin and (2) the offering of prayers such as those said for world peace.

And so, as you can see, Tittus, much of Leviticus 18-23 and ALL the Ten Commandments still apply. After all, how can anyone seriously believe he is following Christ if he thinks he can also committ incest and/or murder and Christ will "forgive him" because he "proclaims" he "believes in" Christ? And, there ARE so-called "Christians" who actually state this is what Christ teaches. What kind of a "bible" do they get that garbage from?

Tittus said.........

Could the Apocrypha be for what Paul wrote to Timothy: 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

In Original Scripture, St. Paul says in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All scripture, INSPIRED BY GOD, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

St. Paul does NOT refer to the Apocrypha at all, that being the NT Aprocrypha as provided in the website above and the ACTUAL Apocrypha of the OT. The OT Apocryha was written by Gnostics and unknown writers before or after Christ and the NT Apocrypha was written AFTER the Apostolic Age, 33-100 A.D. In other words, the Apostles didn't write any of the NT Aprocrypha. In addition, although Sts. Mark and Luke weren't Apostles, St. Mark was St. Peter's disciple and St. Luke was St. Paul's disciple. Also, the Apostle St. Matthew work with St. Peter in Rome and, not many know this but, the Gospel of Matthew was orginally written in Aramaic. Thus, it contained words from Aramaic such as Raca, which is the particular Aramaic word that, if used against another, could get a person into a position of "excommunication from the synogague", as well as the Aramaic word Kepha, for Peter, and kepha...the same exact word....for rock, and this is why Original Scripture tells us Christ meant exactly what He said regarding St. Peter's office as Head Bishop of the Church, the Bishop over all bishops, or the Pope. When St. Matthew's Gospel was LATER translated into Greek, the Greek language, with it's structure of male and female endings, lent itself to the misinterpretation.....purposely misinterpreted meaning....of the word Rock/rock.

Christ and the Apostles never referred to the Apocryphals. Therefore, in 2 Tim. 3:16, St. Paul means the Gospels, the Epistles, the Apocalyse or Book of Revelation, and what he taught and what the other Apostles taught which was the Old Testament deuterocanonical and canonical books , the New Testament deuterocanonical and canonical books, and...within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, he means the Tradition of the Apostles and...within the Catholic Church, he means the Original Interpretation of Original Scripture to which the Apostles delivered both the in THE Book and in THE true meaning of it.

Tittus stated.........

This brings me back to the original question. How did the Council decide which writings were to be included in the Canon?

The Canon, which was the only Canon until the 16th Century Protestants took it and changed it for their movement, was decided on by a number of factors. The Early Church Fathers' teaching of and, therefore, the common useage of, any pre-canoncial and pre-deuterocanonical OT and NT Book held a lot of weight in deciding its canonicity and the oral teaching of the Books and Epistles started with the Apostles. When an Apostle wrote an Epistle to a Church, members of that Church brought it to other Churches, they copied it and used it at their Church. Not all the Churches had all the Epistles, of course, but, ultimately they did due to Councils, inter-bishopic letters, papal envoys, and other modes of contact throughout the centuries. And therefore, contrary to the presumptions of some non-Catholics, the Churches were in contact with one another. St. Peter helped establish the Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and various others in Asia Minor, and the Church in Rome. St. Paul helped St. Peter in Antioch and Rome, and St. Paul established plenty of Churches himself, initally even in each of his Epistles, but also evident in other writings of his or of others. In addition, there are stacks of writings from as early as A.D. 80 indicating that all the Churches recognized the primacy of the Church in Rome. For instance, regarding the full Canon and the recognition of the primal authority of the pope, there exists a particular documentation of communication, among stacks of such communication, between eastern and western bishops and the popes, showing that Pope Innocent I, in 405, sent the listing of Sacred Books, or the same Canon as today, to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, Gaul [France]. This means, of course, all canon and deuterocanon books of the OT and the NT were THE Canon then as now. And so, the Canon was completely the way it is from way back. The 16th Century revolt never changed it and the fact that the revolters went from complaining about abuses to their full-fledged chopping up and, thereby, desecrating the Bible merely demonstrates their political agenda and their insincerity.

Starting with the First Council of the Church in A.D. 50, the periodic Councils/Synods made decisions, as the need arose, regarding clarification of Dogma and Doctrines, matters of Faith and morals, adminstration of the Church, readings of the actions of the previous Council(s) in order to maintain a "running record", etc. These decisions/actions are all called canons. Since the Books of both Testaments were all written on or before A.D. 100, and the Dogma was set and the Doctrines were determined before the compiling of the Bible [before 400], the only thing Councils did AFTER the Bible was compiled, was to clarify Dogma and compare questions regarding Dogma to the Doctrines. If a "new" thought went against Doctrine, it wasn't Christian. And this is what Theology is about because Doctrine Law doesn't change when "the new Fall fashions" appear in store windows. Theology cannot "evolve", although in religions of Revelation, e.g. Catholicism, revelationary information, if it doesn't go against the Theology, and Dogma, and therefoe, the Doctrines, is thoroughly investigated, considered, and could be accepted. Three of the Apparitions of Mary [1500s, 1800s, and 1900s] have been accepted and these are examples of revelationary teachings. Original Christianity is unique because of the fact that it's based on Revelations from A.D. 33 and continues in and with Revelations.

Therefore, long before the Council of Trent in [1554-1563], all the Books of the Bible, including the seven deuterocanonical of the OT and the seven deuterocanonical of the NT....e.g., the Epistles to the Hebews....were part of the Bible.

One more point on this: Besides Hebrews, Luther also threw out the Epistle of St. James but, later found out his new "theology" didn't make any sense without the Epistle to St. James. So, he was faced with a dilemma and had to put that Epistle back in to meet the greater need of what his theology "called for", but, by adding the Epistle back in, he was again faced with the verses and their overall tone that he wanted to "get rid off" since they point to Catholic Dogma. I can see St. James wagging his finger at Luther.

Tittus stated.......

Almost all of the books that we have in the Protestant Bible were written before any of the Gospels were pinned.

All the Books in the OT were, and the Gospels were written in the same 67-year time period, from 33 to 100 A.D., as the Epistles and the Book of Revelation were.

Here's another site filled with the historical information on the "Canon of the New Testatment"....

www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Tittus continued.......

I can imagine John Mark discussing much of his research as he traveled with Paul, Titus, Timothy, and the rest. HOWEVER ...The singularity of the message of 27 books shows the Holy Spirit's hand.

Revelation REALLY shows the Holy Spirit and Revelation hasn't stopped since 33 A.D.

Tittus asked........

Twill, what books are in the Catholic New Testament that are not in the Protestant?

It depends upon which Protestant bible. The Lutherans obviously don't have Hewbrews, unless they put it back in, like what happened with the Epistle of St. James. I can just see St. James wagging a finger at Luther....LOL Heck of a deal....first you don't see it, then do.

The best I can do for you is to list the Books in the Catholic New Testament and you can compare what you have to it. In brackets are the number of chapters each book contains, since I believe some Protestant bibles "edited out" chapters.

The Books of the Catholic New Testament

Gospels and Acts: Matthew [28], Mark [16], Luke [24], John [21], Acts of the Apostles [28]

Epistles of St. Paul: Romans [16], 1 Corinthians [16],
2 Corinthians [13], Galatians [6], Ephesians [6], Philipians [4], Colossians [4], 1 Thessalonians [5],
2 Thessalonians [3], 1 Timothy [6], 2 Timothy [4], Titus [3], Phelemon [1], Hebrews [13]

Other Epistles: James [5], 1 Peter [5], 2 Peter [3], 1 John [5],
2 John [1], 3 John [1], Jude [1]

Apocalysis or Revelation of St. John: [22]