The Cannon a.k.a. the Lost Books

[cataracts]

Great job of research Twilly!!
Cataracts

[tits]

We have all stated our perspective on this, but the question was and is: what writings were available to the Council to establish the Canon. Granted Martin Luther discounted some "books". but the theme did not change. "Christ is"! What did change, as we were taught in Luther's Small Catechism was that Faith was more than works alone, but that our faith was known by our works.

Say, a side note: Do those who went to public school recall meatless Friday's at school and school prayer at the beginning of each day? Geeze I got so tired of tuna casserole and salmon patties!

There are some great web sites for the Canon, all are tainted by the bias of the faith of the authors.

What intrigues me is that our Bible, Protestant or Catholic are based on the works of a few men who did not have the gospels at their fingertips. They were led by faith and the Holy Spirit, yet the message is congruent.

It reminds me of a story Cmdr John McCain once shared concerning his internment in Hanoi. They each contributed memorized scriptures to construct a nearly complete bible.

(Yes, I knew John McCain after his release he was a frail little man who spoke softly. I met him about 15 years later at a conference and he actually remembered me. He did not recall my name but he knew that I was a young marine when we last met. I will follow that man anywhere)

How were the collective writings preserved? We know that Paul instructed the recipient of the letter to the Colossi to copy and share it. But, was there an underground of faithful stenographers who copied and translated the letters from the founding fathers? The Canon was pulled together several generations after the last personal contact with any Apostle had passed.

From my limited perspective, the Catholic bible contains writings that are OT and inter-testament, no new or profound writing by any Apostle was excluded in the Canon. This discussion did show that we all agree that the so called "lost books" that the non-Christian use to cite as proof that we believe a lie were excluded because they did not have "what it takes."

Twil & J, your closing comments concerning Luther made me smile. They resembled the comments many of my Lutheran friends use to make concerning the "evil Catholics". Sitting in the middle it seems that both perspectives are tainted by belief perseverances that are based more tradition than fact.

[tits]

Twil that was excellent.

I have imagined what it must have been like to have been in Paul's small entourage. I can imagine John Mark talking about what he saw of Jesus or of a conversation he overheard between John and Peter as his mother served them. I can almost hear him sharing and discussing the things he learned with Paul, Tim, Titus, Barnabas, etc. as he grew in maturity. Just imagine what a theological discussion must have been like as they walked from town to town. Or to sit up unto the wee hours of the morning discussing some aspect of Christ's teaching as it applied to the Ephesians or Athenians.

[twilly]

The wonderful folly of quoting a Saint of Catholicism, especially St. Thomas Aquinas and even out of context, always ends up placing the Catholics in God's Throne Room.

Apocrypha, no not a popular term now adays was used by Catholics in the Glossa Ordinaria

The Glossa Ordinaria is an addition for the simple purpose of clarifying words and phases to the complex stating of an OPINION, and Catholicism, unlike non-Catholic belief systems, does not hold "opinions" and "commentary" as tenets of the Faith.

Popularity has nothing to do with the fact that NO apocryphal writings exist in Original Scripture, which is Catholicism, and all the Books of THE Bible, Catholic, of course, were accepted before A.D. 400....BUT, some, if not all, Protestant bibles are void of many Books of Sacred Scripture.

and here is a quote for those unaware of it's actually meaning:

Not according to eminent and respected authorities, including St. Thomas Aquinas. The johnny-come-lately revolters of the 16th Century, as part of their defiance, knew the difference between deuterocanonical and aprocrphal but insisted, in vain, there was no difference. They revolters accepted deuterocanonical books of the New Testament, however. The philosophy of "pick and choose" began with them.

Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, followed Augustine in accepting the full canonical status of the Apocrypha.

Both saints knew the difference between the accepted deuterocanonical books and the unaccepted apocryphal books.

It's no secret that modern-day Protestants don't have the facts straight on the simple difference between the classifications of "deuterocanonical" and "aprocyrphal". However, the 16th Century revolters knew the difference. They just wanted to promote a "secular religion, which is an oxymoron.

He wrote:

"Jerome designates a fourth division of books, namely the apocrypha. Apocrypha is named from 'apo', which means 'very', and 'cryphon', which means obscure, because their teachings

Four divisions means FOUR different classifications not ONE. This statement proves the error of attempting to take the supposed statement of a Catholic Saint out of context to "prove" anything against the Catholic Church. One might as well take the Sun out of the sky, thus depriving the very light with which to see, in order to prove the Moon exists. LOL

What's more, given the correct definition of the word "apocrypha" stated above, St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, therefore, with the other "definition" of the word "aprocryha" touted in this thread by the same poster. What was THAT "definintion"? Oh, yeah...."not in the canon"...LOL

and authors are in doubt.

Those are the authors of the REAL apocrypha. What's more, there is one author of the accepted deutrocanonical book of Wisdom, who is unknown; however, St. Thomas Aquinas accepted all the deuteros of BOTH Testaments, of course.

But the catholic church has received these books in the category of holy scriptures,

This is highly questionable since history doesn't record St. Thomas Aquinas stated "received THESE books", with reference to the deutrocanonical books since he never HAD to state the obvious. St. Thomas made the CORRECT distinctions between the classifications of deuterocanonical and apocryphal. What's more, the Church NEVER "received" any books of apocryphal writings into the Bible, actual books of which were accepted in full as the canonical and deuterocanonical books which are in BOTH Testaments and the acceptance was done even before A.D. 400 with NO apocryphals "'accepted" at all.

History proves the above statement is taken out of context, as follows:

During the Middle Ages, when St. Thomas Aquinas lived, the actual Apocrapha had raised it's head, again, and had won a readership among clerics and the laity. It was THIS that St. Thomas spoke out against and not the accepted deuterocanonical books, since the Church NEVER "received" THE Apocryha. Again, this erroneous position is the result of not a few errors of Protestanism.

whose teachings are not in doubt, though its authors are;

All the teachings are in doubt regarding the REAL Aprocryha, therefore this so-called attribution regarding the Aprocryha proves either a misnomer on the part of the poster making this claim or this poster is attributing a falsehood to St. Thomas Aquinas and, therefore, slandering a Catholic Saint.

not because the authors of these books are unknown,

The authors of the REAL Apocrypha "name" themselves, although they ARE unknown, BUT, there is ONE Deuterocanonical Book of the OT, Wisdom, whose authorship is unknown...just ONE of the deuteros, not all of them. Therefore, this proves St. Thomas Aquinas was NOT referring to the deuterocanonical books of Wisdom, Tobias, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, and Judith in the OT.

but because these men were not of known authority.

As per the REAL Apocrypha, of course. Although the authors of the Apocryphal writings "name" themselves, as per above, they cannot be identified as who they claimed they were.

Hence the books have their power not from the authority of the authors, but rather from the reception of the church."

The Church NEVER received any of THE REAL Apocrypha.

Since Protestants do not "accept" the Saints of the Catholic Church, or any type of reference to "saints", other than, perhaps the Apostles, a non-Catholic who attempts to "quote" a Catholic Saint, albeit out of context, PROVES the validity of Catholic Sainthood.

Be that as it is, it's a known fact that St. Thomas Aquinas held to the Doctrine of Purgatory, as with ALL Original Christian Doctrines. In addition, many Anglican Protestant universities and colleges hold St. Thomas Aquinas in high esteem, teach his works, and regret that they have never produced an Anglican similar to St. Thomas Aquinas, as the Catholics, of course, have because his natural and SUPERNATURAL influences and contributions, meaning his REVELATIONS and the fact that he received ecstasies. For these reasons he is correctly called the "Angelic Doctor" because God made his life angelic. and, consequently for these reasons, among others, the Catholic Church cannot be in error in matters of Dogma, Doctrine, Traditions, Oral Teachings, Revelations, the fact of sainthood, and the development of persons who reach sainthood, and the Catholic Church is the only Church from which all of this, plus more, has been and continues to be forthcoming. Therefore, by these manifested facts, the Catholic Church IS the Church blessed by God and it cannot be validly stated that the Church is anything less than all of this and it follows detractors are totally off base and display complete ignorance, stupidity, and/or hatred.

It's no secret St. Thomas Aquinas was a great genius and, as a foundational and a natural cause of his genius he "was a witty child and had received a good soul" [WISDOM 8:19]. This verse from WISDOM, one of the deuterocanonical books of the OT, is attributed TO him and can be considered a prophecy pertaining to St. Thomas Aquinas.

While travelling from Rome to Naples, St. Thomas Aquinas converted two celebrated Jewish rabbis whom he met at the country house of Cardinal Richard [Prummer, op. cit., p. 33; Vaughan, op. cit., I, p. 795]. Rabbi Paul Burgos, in the 15th Century, was converted by reading the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. Theobald Thamer, a disciple of Luther's Protestant croney, Malancthon, gave up his heresy after he read St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa", which had had intended to refute and the Calvanist Daperron was converted int he same way, subsequently becoming Archbishop of Sens and a cardinal [Conway, O.P., op.cit., p. 96].

St. Thomas Aquinas has been in high repute at Oxford University in England and as well as at other non-Catholic universities. Anglicans [Protestant Church of England] have a deep admiration for him and in Alfred Mortimer's writings, he regretfully states, "the English priest has ordinarily no scientific acauantance with the Queen of Sciences" [Christian Theology] and proposing a remedy says, "The simpliest and most perfect sketch of universal theology is to be found in The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas." [vol. II, pp. 454, 465] Nearly all good spiritual writers seek in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas definitions of the virtures which they recommend.

There is no doubt St. Thomas Aquinas held to the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory since one of the catechisms of the Catholic Church is inspired by and is drawn from his writings, which are widely known and highly esteemed, and this catechism, possesing high authority, is an expostion of Catholic Doctrine, the Council ordered translations into the vernacular [native languages] of all nations, and this catechism is the Cathechism of the Council of Trent.

The leaders of the 16th Century revolt honored St. Thomas Aquinas by attacking him at the Council of Trent, Luther being particularily violent in his coarse invectives against the great doctor.

Martin Bucer, one of the leaders of the Southern German Revolt, quoted Luther as stating at the Council, "Take away St. Thomas and I will destroy the Church". LOL, and it never happened.

Pope Leo XIII remarks, regarding Luther's "declaration", "The hope is vain but the testimony is valid", meaning, among other things, the world has proof from Luther's own mouth, that Luther knew St. Thomas Aquinas had Luther's "number" centuries before Luther was born and that St. Thomas Aquinas cannot be validly quoted, albeit out of context, by anyone in support of Protestantism apologetics against the Church, including what Protestants, contrary to the rest of the world, call "the Apocrypha".

[tits]

Not according to eminent and respected authorities, including St. Thomas Aquinas. The johnny-come-lately revolters of the 16th Century, as part of their defiance, knew the difference between deuterocanonical and aprocrphal but insisted, in vain, there was no difference. They revolters accepted deuterocanonical books of the New Testament, however. The philosophy of "pick and choose" began with them.

Talk about a walk of faith! The Church really vilified that man for a while. He has been a hero of mine since my youth. I wonder if I can trace some of my "tree hugging" tendencies to my respect for St. Thomas

Did you ever wonder what was happening during this time period of the late middle ages that so many friars, monks, and priests sought to reform the Church? That is a topic that I would also like to investigate.

I mean, think about it. Suddenly Marco Polo comes back proclaiming that a society greater than that of the RCC existed. Christo Colombo sails off on an economic expedition for the strongest monarchy and comes back claiming that peoples existed that should not be there. John Wycliffe and John Huss espoused similar teachings to Martin Luther nearly a century earlier.

It seems that the reformation movement and the age of enlightenment had a purpose.

Darwinism came from the Hegelian concepts based upon the age of enlightenment.

Where was the greater insult, Lutheranism or the age of enlightenment which can be shown to eventually lead to modern communism, socialism, national socialism, and other atheistic doctrines?

Heck some of the greatest divisions occurred before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Statements to the Door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg

[twilly]

cataracts said:

Great job of research Twilly!!
Cataracts

Thanks, Cataracts!

[twilly]

Twil that was excellent.

Thanks.......

I have imagined what it must have been like to have been in Paul's small entourage. I can imagine John Mark talking about what he saw of Jesus or of a conversation he overheard between John and Peter as his mother served them. I can almost hear him sharing and discussing the things he learned with Paul, Tim, Titus, Barnabas, etc. as he grew in maturity. Just imagine what a theological discussion must have been like as they walked from town to town. Or to sit up unto the wee hours of the morning discussing some aspect of Christ's teaching as it applied to the Ephesians or Athenians.

Do you REALLY want to know HOW St. Peter thought and some of the important things he said in addition to what is written in the New Testament? Do you really want to know...not just imagine....what it would have been like to be St. Peter's disciple, converted, of course, from surrounding belief systems?....how and what St. Peter taught?....how and what he preached?....how he handle antagonists, mostly Simon Magus, and just what he said to the likes of him?....be in a front-row seat when he healed the sick? Why imagine when all of this and more is already written and was recorded at the time St. Peter was alive.

If you want to do more than merely imagine and if you're willing to read a little every now and then, there is a well-known, early Christian 10-Book collection, written by St. Clement of Rome [28 A.D - 101 A.D.] who was St. Peter's student and was ordained by St. Peter, and who served as the Fourth Pope [88-97]. Prefaced and translated by the Presbyter of Aquileia [around 387-389] and addressed to Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia [387-410], this 10-Book collection is entitled, "Recognitions".

Here's the website:

www.newadvent.org/fathers/0804.htm

[twilly]

tits said:

Not according to eminent and respected authorities, including St. Thomas Aquinas. The johnny-come-lately revolters of the 16th Century, as part of their defiance, knew the difference between deuterocanonical and aprocrphal but insisted, in vain, there was no difference. The revolters accepted deuterocanonical books of the New Testament, however. The philosophy of "pick and choose" began with them.

Talk about a walk of faith! The Church really vilified that man for a while.

What man? Not St. Thomas Aquinas. This must refer to Luther, and...never mind what Luther declared at the Council of Trent. Must have been like Nikita Kruschev when that maniac pounded his shoe on the U.N. table. Luther vilified himself.

As far as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church never "vilified" him. To the exteme contrary, the Church recognized what St. Thomas Aquinas was immediately...a brilliant and faithful Catholic. At age 9, the Church had him enroll at the University of Naples [Catholic, of course], at the insistence of the Abbot of Monte Cassino who told Thomas' father, the Count of Aquino, that a boy of such talents should never be left in obscurity. When he was aroung 18, he studied under St. Albertus Magnus who said of St. Thomas, "...his bellowing in doctrine will some day sound around the world", and St. Albertus was right. St. Thomas supassed him in accuracy, lucidity, brevity, adn powe of exposition, if not in univerality of knowledge. Therefore, there's no way anyone can compare the St. Thomas Aquinas, who was phsyically and visibily in communication with Christ, to the likes of the self-serving, violent Luther.

He has been a hero of mine since my youth. I wonder if I can trace some of my "tree hugging" tendencies to my respect for St. Thomas

The only thing St. Thomas Aquinas embraced was the religious life, so, I don't follow you on the "tree hugging". He wasn't born in the woods or rural region. He born into nobility, raised in the Naples, Italy. He also gave up the wealth of his family for the religious life.

Did you ever wonder what was happening during this time period of the late middle ages that so many friars, monks, and priests sought to reform the Church? That is a topic that I would also like to investigate.

"So many"? How many compared to the overall membership of the Church during that era?....in other words, what's the percentage. Facts are, there were many more in the higher levels of ecclesiastical learning who wrote against the so-called "reformers" and who are well-known.

I mean, think about it. Suddenly Marco Polo comes back proclaiming that a society greater than that of the RCC existed.

The RCC is NOT "a society". Marco Polo was a mere man, albeit Catholic, but he wasn't the first one and won't be the last one to speak before thinking since there's no way Buddhism can be compared to Catholicism because Buddhist lacks the main ingredient...Christ. Rather like the "reformers".

What's more, what have Buddhists ever done for the world beyond their noses? Nothing, since they're too busy in Nirvana....sound asleep! It took the Catholic missionaries to take care of THEIR poor, that's how "wonderful" they were and still are. As a result of sleeping the centuries away in Nirvana, they're now under communist rule and have been so for a long, long time. Apparently they are candidates for the "snooze and loose" award. So, much for whatever Polo might have claimed.

Christo Colombo sails off on an economic expedition for the strongest monarchy and comes back claiming that peoples existed that should not be there.

Columbus, another Catholic, "sailed off" for Mary, the Mother of Christ, and, like the entire then world thought, he thought he was going to find India, but he and the world were off a slight bit. They should have communicated with the Norsemen. LOL

John Wycliffe and John Huss espoused similar teachings to Martin Luther nearly a century earlier.

Not quite the same "teachings". They didn't come up with cosubstantiation but with impanation. And even Luther laughed at that "theology". But, as with Luther, they denied the Word of Christ. They also attempted to claim Christ said what He didn 't say. After all , the word "is" is SO simple and it takes a simpleton to NOT know what the word "is" means.

Be that as it is, as with Luther, these to "Johns"...as in johnny-come-latelys", used the guise of "reform" to expound their heretical and political ideas. Wycliffe got involved with an anti-clerical oligarchic party, teemed up with the English king's son, and after disputes between the king and the pope were supposedly "resolved", the English proceeded to go against their word, as always, and attempted to subjugate the Church under the secular rule of the king. Sounds like Henry VIII two centuries before he showed up. And Huss, a Cathlolic priest, who got himself excommunicated just like Wycliff did, followed Wycliffe instead of Christ. Huss [Jan Hus] backed the wrong horse since where's Huss today?...and where's the Czech Republic after over 50 years of communist oppression?

So, much for "reform", and for sure, the Church doesn't keep heretical losers in the pulpit and in the universities...the property is owned by the Church, ordained priests take vows to uphold Catholic Dogma, and they are to teach Catholicism, not "new or old fangled notionisms". And, again, for every one who was some supposed "reformer", there are at least three people who wrote against them.

But....how quick some forget the fact Blessed Pope John Paul II went into a Soviet-controlled Eastern European nation, Poland, without even so much as a pocket knife, while the Soviets were armed to the teeth, and the Pope supported the Polish workers Solidarity Movement against the Soviets, and the Soviets didn't dare touch the Pope. The Pope stayed there for 6 months because he knew the Soviets were going to use other of the Eastern European slave-states in a military slaughter of the unarmed Polish population...unarmed because the Soviets stripped them of their personal arms and their means of self-defense. The Pope frustrated and destroyed their plan to slaughter the Poles! But...some jerky heretics are "somehow heroes"....LOL

After WW II, half of "reformed" Germany was taken over by the Soviets, "reformed" England was nearly done in during that war, and the bottom line with this "reform" bull is, nothing could be more at variance with the essential chararcter of theology than an endeavor to set upon it the stamp of nationalism.

It seems that the reformation movement and the age of enlightenment had a purpose.

"It seems".....maybe it seems not, then. The results of the Protestant Revolt proved the fact, courtesy of the Soviets, that the stamp of nationalism cannot be placed on theology because when that's done, the liberals and the atheists move in and take over.

The enlightenment came out of the Dark Ages, it started with the early Renaissance and the RCC was in the center of it, through the Dark Ages and before it started since the Church was the only oganization in Europe that had universities to include the arts, letters, and the sciences.

Darwinism came from the Hegelian concepts based upon the age of enlightenment.

Darwinism is dead. The Theory of Evolution is only a theory. A theory is an IDEA and nothing more. That theory does NOT include the hypothesis of human evolution, in only applies to the fact that a few species of fawna may have evolved, Blessed Pope John II observed this possibility, the scientific world HAD to demonstrated it TO him before it could OFFICIALLY be raised from an hypothesis to a theory and it was the Pope who raised it to a theory in 1996....BUT humans have nothing to do with that theory.

Where was the greater insult, Lutheranism or the age of enlightenment which can be shown to eventually lead to modern communism, socialism, national socialism, and other atheistic doctrines?

Insult?...try evil. The age of enlightenment would have been far more of a benefit to humankind but for the Protestant Revolt. The revolt weakened the emerging European nations because it divided them. Luther's rationalistic philosophy paved the way for the take over of by the communists and their atheism. It's no secret that the German Lutherans hated the Jews, also.

Heck some of the greatest divisions occurred before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Statements to the Door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg

What "divisions" occurred? The Great Schim centuries before the revolt which didn't cause a worldwide problem but only the constant and continuing problems Constantinople was always bringing upon itself? Big deal! That's not a division within Europe. However, it was the emperor of Constantinople who urgently requested help from the pope with their Muslim problem centuries after they because schimatics. How ludicrous is that?

Or....the constant heresies that popped up via members of the Church?...like those so-called "heroes" Wyclifff and Huss? They were taken care of. No one HAS to be a member of any church if they don't want to be, BUT, most of these internal heretical groups wanted to stay in the Church AND claim there own doctrine, which is clearly impossible and more ludicrous than the Eastern Church suddenly wanting to "befriend" the pope for what the West could give THEM, which was in line with the character of that bunch in Constantinople, for sure. What's more, many of these internal heretical groups slaughtered the Faithful of the Church, the Church didn't put up with that bull, and rightfully so.

Or....the Muslims? The invasion of Europe by an external, hostile, and a totally different "ethnic group"? That's not a division and the Europeans did exactly what they were supposed to do, they got rid of the Muslims. And, after 9/11,....the Crusades didn't do enough!

One more point on the "religious descendants" of Wycliff: In Brazil, the largest Catholic county, the Wycliff bible translators have been hanging around the Amazon, flushing out the Natives with enticements to "preserving" their languages and cultures...only to allow the Fundamentalists to get in there and slaughter the Natives. Brazil ought throw the entire worthless bunch of them out.

[tits]

That is if my history is correct. Just like St. Francis they the Church thought them crazy while they were alive.



What is this fixation with Luther? I could pick on any number of Popes who were just a vile and did not follow the Book. Those people were, they led people astray, and also much good sprang forth from their "evil". The Lord doeth work in mysterious ways.

There appears to have been something happening near the end of the middle ages as the Spanish ruled the Empire. Their ruthlessness seems to have stirred many to seek reform.

Twil, your fixation with Luther is exactly what I believe is wrong with America's Christian community today. We are no better than the Sunni and Shia of Islam or the Kosher and Hasidic Jews. We spend more time denouncing each other than we do in what Christ and his earthly brother James (that is how the writer of Hebrews referred to him) said we must be about: "Pure religion and undefined is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their distress and to see to their needs."

Down town KC there is a huge Lutheran Mission, a Protestant Mission, and Catholic Charities. Each is seeking to sustain themselves. Each is polite to the other, but each is also first and foremost a political entity for their church. Just imagine what good could be done if the three were to unify under what Paul described to the Philippians: "One faith, one baptism, one Church, one Lord, one God the father is above all, in all, and through you all."

Twil, I do not doubt that Catholics have received a bum rap for nearly 400 years, heck King Henry did them no favor. But I have no room for the "poor pitiful mes" and blame game of most religions. Jesus denounced those practices so why wrap ourselves in them? I am not a Jew, but I have studied Judaism and I could accept that faith if, only if, I did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I have studied Islam and find that its OT foundations are sound, a bit twisted, but sound. Yet, that religion has denounced Jesus as nothing more than a prophet and seeks to identify all Jews and Christians as "Pagans" in 16 separate versus. In eight versus it then says that all Pagan who refuse to accept Mohammad as the Prophet should be killed.
I have not studied the Catholic Catechism, but I was raised in a blended family and attended many masses and argued plenty with my cousins.
I was raised in a German Lutheran community and attended church where the services were in German until I was 9 yo. I have heard many of the older ones speak in equally damning terms of the Catholic Church as you have against Luther.

HOWEVER, I must ask what have the scandals of the Rev. Haggard, Jim Jones, the dozens of Priests accused of sexual abuse (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-E.html) done for the Word to the greater community? The greater community is very skeptical of those of us of faith. The society in which we live is seeking to make know our hypocrisy to prove that we believe a lie. How does dwelling on the sins of those who have gone before unify the Church? How does viciously attacking Luther help to win the soul of one lost?

If as your statements have indicated, you consider Luther vile and his followers evil, then do as Paul, the 70 disciples, and the Apostles were instructed by Christ in Matthew: Shake the dust off your feet have nothing to do with them. A challenge, I want you to search Paul's letters and show me where he dwelt on the evil of those who turned their backs on the faith. You will find a statement here and there not to break bread with them, but you will never find where Paul attacks or slanders them. In fact, the only example of vicious attacks is from Christ against the Pharisees. Heck Christ did not denounce the Samaritans (Samarians refers to those who lived in the city Samaria and Samaritans is the general region), in fact, he had compassion on them when they pleaded with him. (even a dog eats the crumbs from his masters table. Such faith I have seen in all Israel.)

Twill, I really enjoy your insight, but please refrain from attacking Luther as if he was the only Catholic who denounced the Church.

[cataracts]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that the reformation movement and the age of enlightenment had a purpose.


Darwinism came from the Hegelian concepts based upon the age of enlightenment.

Where was the greater insult, Lutheranism or the age of enlightenment which can be shown to eventually lead to modern communism, socialism, national socialism, and other atheistic doctrines?

-------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am certainly not a philosopher, but Tittus' statements shouts for clarification. Hegel was a sophist. What is sophistry? It is the process of a reason overthrown, which asks the demonstration of evidence, and which in the meanwhile denies evidence. Sophistry demands the refutation of the absurd, and which in the meanwhile affirms the absurd.

Tittus, are you a sophist? I've have carefully read what you have written above. What are you saying? If reason can have two extreme limits, one being evidence and the other being absurd, a sophist would destroy both extremes. You speak about the canon of the Bible and place Protestant (Luther and others) as the rightful contributors and then take the Early Church Fathers of 400 AD and criticize them for faulty workmanship. This sounds like evidence and absurdity being displaced.

Darwin came from the Hegelian conception of the Enlightenment according to you. I agree with you. Hegel was the greatest sophist of the enlightenment. Hegel's philosophy was infinitely dangerous to a midevil Europe. What a coincidence that Darwin owes his success to Hegel.

I see no reason why Luther should not be attacked. It is good that he is attacked. The Lutherans should know what a poisonous fellow he is. If there is error in the attack on Luther, then let it be known. Those that are attacking him could then defend themselves in a proper forum. Tittus, Luther was the first of many so called reformers to attack the Catholic Church. I think it's time that Luther, and Calvin, and the many more that came should defend themselves. These men have attacked the true Church of God. They have done their level best to destroy it. They have failed. Exactly who is it that would want the true Church of God destroyed?

You asked the question: What was the greater insult? Luther or the Enlightenment?
The answer is: They are both insulting. They are both deadly to the souls of men. Luther for trying to destroy the Catholic Church and the Enlightenment for wanting to snuff the light out of all men in all places.

Cataracts

[jfree]

Cateracts are you Stilleto or what, you sure sound like him and are doing the same thing Willy and Still did at THC.

You and Willy both need to reread your posts and see what it is you say. I don't really care if you hate Luther, nor does anyone who is a non-catholic Christian. The point of fact proven thru history and the Vaticans own records is the churches were utter failures and completely corrupt, they went directly against Christ's own teaches JUDGE NOT, in creating the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition and stood in place of God usurping his right to judge and they burned heretics at the stake, they held the same threat over all the Kings and Queens, and oppressed millions with the threat of death, Luther did what was right. He took that away from them, and in doing so the RCC then in the Counsel of Trent declared the Aprocrypha of the OT Deuterocannonical, it was loosing it grip on power over the people which is what happens when you inject a heirarchy and remove Jesus as head of the Church. Thank you God for Luther and all who had the courage in the light of mortal threats to stand up and not take it anymore, the proven historical fact is these books WERE NOT considered holy scripture until Trent and only because they backed up the theory of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead and even the Council at Trent blatently states they neither checked nor attempted to prove the provinance of those books or the Authors.

Here is a great summation on the Apocrypha:

The October, 1978, issue of Reader's Digest carries an article by Ernest O. Hauser dealing with the fourteen apocryphal books which are usually bound together with the inspired writings in Catholic editions, some Masonic editions and a few "Protestant" editions of the word of God. Although the article is informative and interesting it must be regarded as undocumented since it consists primarily of summary statements by the author. Occasional statements enclosed in quotation marks are never credited to a source.

While Hauser represents the viewpoints of different groups, he never quite gets around to clearly representing his own views of the apocrypha. The article seems calculated to recommend the study or the apocryphal books to "Protestants" along with the Bible, but several questions arise:

1. Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

2. Are we being encouraged to consider the apocryphal books as being inspired of God in the same sense as the books of the Bible?

3. Or are the apocryphal books merely being recommended as exciting religious source books in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

4. Does the author have a very limited conception of the inspiration of the scriptures, and is he merely recommending that the apocryphal books be received as "inspired" in this very limited way?

Hauser does state correctly that "the books of the Apocrypha were not part of the Hebrew Old Testament, which consisted of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings." He further said that when the sacred scripture was translated into Greek (I suppose he is referring to the Septuagint Translation, made about 280 B.C. - TH) that several added works found their way into its text. By this I presume that he is referring to the fact that when the Greeks had the Hebrew scriptures translated for the library at Alexandria, Egypt, they did also have the Old Testament apocryphal books translated, and these were sometimes circulated along with the books of the Hebrew scriptures. It should be remembered that the Greeks were not interested in the Hebrew scriptures because they conceived of them as the word of God necessarily, but because they viewed them as being important Hebrew literary traditions.

In all of Hauser's article the thing which troubles me most is his final statement; "Thus Protestants the world over are able to enjoy as an extra treat the wisdom and inspiration of the Apocrypha." This statement troubles me for three reasons: first, I do not know what he means by "inspiration"; secondly, most people have little or no knowledge of the apocryphal writings; and thirdly, I fear that the average reader will take this as a claim that the apocryphal writings should be received on a par with the word of God!

1. What is meant by the word "inspiration"?

2. Is the Old Testament apocrypha inspired?

What Is Inspiration?

There are three commonly held views of inspiration:

1. Some hold that inspiration is nothing more than a flash of insight of purely naturalistic origins. Accordingly these people view an artist as "inspired" to produce a great painting. In actuality such a person may be talented and imaginative, but he is not inspired in the scriptural sense of the term!

2. Others hold that biblical inspiration involves God in some nebulous way implanting ideas or thoughts in the minds of prophets and apostles who in turn expressed those ideas however they chose from their own experience and background. This idea, sometimes called thought inspiration, could not be relied upon to produce an error free revelation since its quality would obviously be limited by the personal initiative and reliability of the men involved. As one might naturally expect, those who argue for the thought inspiration of the Bible often place a low estimate on the value and authority of its writings.

3. The Bible itself claims to have been produced by a process which is often called verbal and plenary inspiration. By definition, inspiration means "God-breathed" as translated from the Greek term theospneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. Verbal means that the very words are each inspired as they were given by the Holy Spirit through the various apostles, prophets, etc. Plenary means that the whole thing is inspired and authoritative so that certain parts should not be thought of as mythological or imaginative.




The defense of the concept of verbal and plenary inspiration might justifiably exhaust many volumes, but a few reasons are outlined here:

1. Paul taught that the scriptures were breathed out by God, that is, spoken by Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2. Scripture did not come by the will of the men who wrote it, but they wrote as they were moved to do so by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

3. The very words of scripture were given by the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:13).

4. The function of prophets primarily involved vocalizing God's will (Ex. 3:13-15; 4:1-16; 6:28 thru 7:1).

5. Declarations of religious responsibility were prohibited except to the extent that they were oracles from God (1 Pet. 4:11).

6. The Old Testament contains some 2,600 claims for inspiration.

7. Although not as prolific in making such claims for inspiration as the Old Testament is, the New Testament makes several dozen such claims.

8. Finally, we observe that Jesus (who claimed to be the Son of God) stressed that a receiving of the words of the apostolic messengers was tantamount to a receiving of Himself and of God the Father (Matt. 10:40; John 12:48; 13:20).

Is The Old Testament Apocrypha Inspired?

While there are some who argue for accepting the apocrypha as inspired, there are also others who only argue for the acceptance of the apocryphal books on a par with the scriptures. These are not the same as, in the latter case, their attitude toward the scriptures may be quite low. Still others, including myself, argue that the apocryphal books have some value from a historical perspective because they provide insight into Jewish history, culture, literary traditions and religious background of the biblical and immediate post-biblical era. But I deny that the apocryphal works are inspired or that they should be regarded on a par with scripture!

I now offer a few reasons for rejecting the apocryphal books as being inspired:

1. The fourteen Old Testament apocryphal books under consideration never make any claim to being inspired! If the authors themselves did not claim inspiration, why should we? The author of the Maccabees makes it very clear that there were no prophets or inspired men alive in his day, and that there had not been any for some time (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41)!

2. The Hebrews did not accept the apocrypha as part of the scriptures. Josephus listed the books of the Old Testament without making any allowance for the apocrypha.

3. There are some 280 direct quotations of the Old Testament in the new having been taken from some 28 of the 39 books of the Old Testament, but there is not one clear quotation from the apocryphal books.

4. According to Westcott and Hort, Paul himself quoted 192 times from 25 of the Old Testament books. But not once is there a clear quotation from the apocryphal books in Paul's writings. Hauser's article claims that echoes of the book Wisdom are found in Paul's letter to the Romans, but he failed to cite these "echoes" or to give references.

5. Philo and Josephus, early Jewish writers, rejected the apocrypha. So did Origen and Jerome, early Christian writers. So did the council at Jamnia (90 A.D.). Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate widely used by the Roman Catholic Church, branded the works as apocryphal or spurious and denied their admission into the translation of the scriptures.

6. While Hauser alluded to the Catholic affirmation of the sanctity of the apocryphal books which was given at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, he failed to mention that they did not approve 1 and 2 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasseh. Furthermore, Roman Catholic approval of the apocryphal works at such a late date could hardly be considered unbiased since a number of cardinal church doctrines such as purgatory and prayer for the dead have absolutely no biblical support and just rest solely on the feeble support of obsecure apocryphal texts such as 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

7. The widespread uncertainty and lack of support for the apocryphal books which has generally characterized them as contrasted with the widespread acceptance cf the biblical books make the two different as day and night.




In conclusion, may I suggest that the historic worth of the apocryphal books may elevate them somewhat above the pseudepigrapha, but they fall far short of the mark of even being worthy of comparison with the books and letters which make up the Bible!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 455-457
July 19, 1979

[cataracts]

Thank you jfree for responding to my post. I did want to discuss Luther and you did briefly give me your opinion. I would never go to the Reader's Digest for anything concerning my religion. I have never heard of this fellow Hauser. Your main argument concerning the canon appears to come from something called Truth Magazine. I have never heard of Truth Magazine. Maybe these subjects were not meant to be discussed in an intelligible manner on this forum.

Basically my argument against Luther is that he was a fake. He saw an opportunity to make a name for himself and took it. In the process he did his best to destroy the Catholic Church. The reformers that followed him were about the same as Luther, more or less.
People on this forum take heart in the fact that our Church was in fact guilty of indisgressions. Whatever our Church was guilty of it did not warrent the poison of Luther and his ilk. The Catholic Church is quite a bit more than "indulgences". The reformers wanted to destroy the Catholic Church. The only force that I know that would want the same thing is the devil.
Protestants were cut off vine. They have been cut off ever since. They failed in the 16th Century and they have failed now. If our Church fails in the 21 st Century, your church won't have long to go if it doesn't go before ours. Please don't misunderstand my last sentance. The Catholic Church will be here forever. It may fail temporarily in the USA but it will never disappear. This same thing cannot be said for the Protestant Churches.

Cataracts

[tits]

Thanks Cat, at least we know your opinion.

Where did I equate Luther with the Canon? Your belief perseverance did that. Luther did not write any book nor take away any book of the bible. This must be some of the old Catholic hate. Luther wanted to argue that James was not inspired, but ....

Question, what is the thrust of Paul's writings of Colossians? This is a serious test.

Again, what writings were available to the council that they were able to decide on the ones in the bibile?

I came across something recently using a Jewish source for the intertestament period. The books of the law were destroyed by Nebuchadneezer's fire. Ezra was led by the Holy Spirit and rewrote the books of the law over a 40 day period. This writing was then copied and sent to courners of the world. In addition, Ezra, Nehemiah, and "the 40 elders" spent many years collecting writings and chronicales from the various kingdoms surrounding Israel to write Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Do you have any information on the Easras?

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

Here is another source for the Jewish perspective on the books of the Tanakh? I noticed that some of this information is very different from that offered on The New Advent. www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

[cataracts]

tits said:

Thanks Cat, at least we know your opinion.

Where did I equate Luther with the Canon? Your belief perseverance did that. Luther did not write any book nor take away any book of the bible. This must be some of the old Catholic hate. Luther wanted to argue that James was not inspired, but ....

Question, what is the thrust of Paul's writings of Colossians? This is a serious test.

Tittus,
Yes I did enter of few of my own opinions in the above post.

Luther was equated with the canon because he had made his own canon. Luther's canon looked about the same as the Catholic canon except he removed 7 Books from the Old Testament. These Books are in the Catholic bible and always have been.
If I'm not mistaken Luther also removed other scripture from the New Testament. However I am unsure of this.

Catholic hate?? Protestants really must stretch the truth to come up with this little dark formula. It is interesting to note that when the Christians (read Catholics) were being slaughtered by the Romans, they were not being accused of any subtrafuge against Rome. The Christians were accused of "hating" the pagans. Interesting that this word should come up again amongst the Protestants.

Again, what writings were available to the council that they were able to decide on the ones in the bibile?

The group of bishops and lay men that put together the one and only true canon of the Bible probably had at their disposal everything written at that time. Please note Tittus that it took them approximately ten years. They had the help of the Holy Spirit. This is the same Holy Spirit that conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary.


I came across something recently using a Jewish source for the intertestament period. The books of the law were destroyed by Nebuchadneezer's fire. Ezra was led by the Holy Spirit and rewrote the books of the law over a 40 day period. This writing was then copied and sent to courners of the world. In addition, Ezra, Nehemiah, and "the 40 elders" spent many years collecting writings and chronicales from the various kingdoms surrounding Israel to write Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Do you have any information on the Easras?

I don't have my Bible with me at the moment. I'll see what I can find out.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

Here is another source for the Jewish perspective on the books of the Tanakh? I noticed that some of this information is very different from that offered on The New Advent. www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm


I have never seen a Jewish Old Testament. The very term Old Testament implies a New Testament. The Jews have neither. The Jewish Torah is pretty close to our first five Books of the Old Testament. After those first five Books we have the remainder of the Old Testament, which the Jews refuse to acknowledge. We don't really need their perspective on the Old Testament or the New Testament. I have found the New Advent to be very close to authentic Catholic Teachings. I would no more go to a Jewish Book to explain Catholic teachings than a Jew would go to the New Testament to find out where they went wrong.

Sorry, but I am not up on the thrust of Paul's writings on the Colossians.

Cataracts

[twilly]

cataracts said:

Thank you jfree for responding to my post. I did want to discuss Luther and you did briefly give me your opinion. I would never go to the Reader's Digest for anything concerning my religion. I have never heard of this fellow Hauser. Your main argument concerning the canon appears to come from something called Truth Magazine. I have never heard of Truth Magazine. Maybe these subjects were not meant to be discussed in an intelligible manner on this forum.

Basically my argument against Luther is that he was a fake. He saw an opportunity to make a name for himself and took it. In the process he did his best to destroy the Catholic Church. The reformers that followed him were about the same as Luther, more or less.
People on this forum take heart in the fact that our Church was in fact guilty of indisgressions. Whatever our Church was guilty of it did not warrent the poison of Luther and his ilk. The Catholic Church is quite a bit more than "indulgences". The reformers wanted to destroy the Catholic Church. The only force that I know that would want the same thing is the devil.
Protestants were cut off vine. They have been cut off ever since. They failed in the 16th Century and they have failed now. If our Church fails in the 21 st Century, your church won't have long to go if it doesn't go before ours. Please don't misunderstand my last sentance. The Catholic Church will be here forever. It may fail temporarily in the USA but it will never disappear. This same thing cannot be said for the Protestant Churches.

Cataracts

Good and a thorough response regarding Luther, Cataracts.

There is more, however, and it involves the fact that only some Protestants continue to misname the Deuteros of the OT and they don't even realize that the Protestants, for the most part, have at least six Deuteros in the New Testament. It's "OK" for them to "consider" those six books "canonical" when they are not, but they continue, as stated, in their error of misnaming the OT Deuteros as "aprocyphal". This shows further that "pick and choose" habit that got the entire Luther mess started to begin with.

Now that you've successfully countered the Luther part of that totally outrageous post, I'll be going in for the "RIP" on the actually history of the OT Deuteros, going back to a letter written by Origen [b.185 A.D.], the most esteemed early Christian historian, in which he states to Julius Africanus [160-240], the Father of Christian chronography, that the Deuterocanonical Books of the OT were never in the Hebrew Apocrypha and I'm quoting the pertinent parts of the letter. The entire history of the OT Deuteros also plainly shows that no one in the Church, at any time in history, considered the OT Deuteros to be other than Deuteros and I'm listing the other historians, popes, saints, etc., by names, dates when they lived, and quotes.