The Cannon a.k.a. the Lost Books

[tits]

The Tanakh is basically the Mishnah in written form. The part that I was wanting to discuss is whether your information had any reference to Ezra going into a 40 day trance and rewriting the books of the law. I believe that you both are correct, both the 430 b.c. gathering of the elders that led to the compilations of the historical writing available writings and the council took years to compile. Heck, Ezra made several references to books of the annals of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and other neighboring kings in both Ezra and Nehemiah.

I also agree that those men at the council took great care to insure that they were guided by the Holy Spirit to collect the writings into the Canon. What intrigues me are the few references by Paul in various letters to "previous letters" and "Peter's writing". Those Pauline letters were written before Peter put his thoughts to paper. So what were those other writings. Some have argued that those previous writings were earlier books, however, some of the references in them do not match the earlier books.

The THC did a piece over the last few years concerning the "lost books of the bible" that introduced some writings that I have never heard of. I agree that those writings were probably excluded by the Holy Spirit, but...

the new Humanist and agnostics are using those on their web sites as proof that the bible is garbage. Cats I refer to the new Humanist because the new or revised doctrine is far removed from those of the early Hegelian and Sophist. These people are closer to Marx in their perspective of “organized religion”. Our battle today should not be between Protestant and Catholic, Pentecostal and Protestant. Our battle today is against the secular humanist who have divided us and allowed the false teachings of the Mormon’s and Jehovah Witnesses and others to be examples of faith.

I salute both of you for your faith. My faith is just as strong but only God knows your heart and mine. While I strongly disagree with your opinion on Luther, that is your opinion and that is fine. I learned a long time ago that I suffered from what Samuel Clemens identified: "Where prejudice exists it always discolors our thoughts." Your statements appear to qualify also.

However, I found that the majority of people's beliefs regardless of where I traveled in the world. "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." (Mark Twain) I believe this terrible Jihad in which we have been labeled the great Satan is an example. Over here, most people think that those people hate us because of Bush. Over there, most people think all Americans are whoremongering homosexuals wanting to push our lack of morals on the rest of the world.

I do not mind discussing these topics with you because you clearly have not gotten your information second hand. However, the majority of our brotherhoods have. In fact, if the numbers are correct, less than 20% of either the Protestant or Catholic self-espoused believers attend services more than twice a year. When I lived in Italy in 1976, a survey in the local paper had a headline that “5% of Catholics attend Church! Is the Church dead?”

Twil and Cat your comments concerning Luther and all Protestants and those of many Protestant leaders are examples of the type of rhetoric (true or false) that can and does lead multitudes. It can be damaging. Those who have not or will not take the time to search the scriptures to know the truth themselves will be led into the Mark Twain camp of second-hand faith. You have to look no further than Hagard, Jim Jones and David Koresh to see where faith in a man can lead. In fact, it was not until my youth that my Catholic family were given the freedom to search the scriptures. Prior to that, it was believed that only the Priests, Bishops, and Church leaders had the divine ability to "rightly divine" the scriptures.

I feel that I must again share two scriptures of warning that are in both our bibles (Catholic and Protestant) these should have every Christian scared. When tied to Paul's admonitions of the Colossians and the few passages in John's Revelation we all must be diligent and constantly seeking to improve our walk with God.

Matthew 7 especially 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Matthew 25 especially 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "

Revelation 22: "18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

The gist is that we need to be careful not let our faith grow weak and we need to seek to be about pure religion and undefiled as James defined it. These verses indicate that just because we "think" or "feel" that we are righteous, does not mean that we are righteous.

I kind of wonder what God may think listening to our prayers, so many of us argue with God over the silliest of things. "Never Argue With A Fool. Someone Watching May Not Be Able To Tell" The Difference.-Anonymous Question, does God listen to the prayers of non-believers? If the story of Balam, Barak, and donkey is true and if the story of Job is true, then the answer is YES. Balam was not a Hebrew and the people of Ninevah were not Jewish, yet God heard them. He sent the angel to confuse Balam to prevent him from uttering a prayer of curses.

As for as me and my house, we shall follow Joshua’s example and serve the Lord.

This is so very frightening. "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" was said to followers and believers who did not fully comply with Christ’s intent that James stated so well: James 1:26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Twil and Cat, you can pat yourselves on the back for your opinions of Luther, but... we can all be assured of our faith. However, who will be the final arbitrator and judge?

The Greatest Lesson In Life Is To Know That Even Fools Are Right Sometimes. --Winston Churchill

[tits]

writings. In none of his writings will you find him labeling people or groups. He clearly stated not to socialize with the nonbeliever or the person who would not cease their sin. Please review Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans.

Christ stated it plainly that we are to love God and our love neighbor. He then made reference to Levitical Law of caring for the alien, orphans, and widows. He also, granted forgiveness to non-Jews (Samaritans and Romans). He listened to the pleas of the non-Jew while he was clearly about the work of his father to take the Word to the Jew. He left the work of to the gentile to Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and others.

One great thing about the Catholic Church in America today, it has a history of fulfilling James' instruction to comply with Christ's teachings.

Question, have the humanist taken our instruction away from us with the social services and UN personal relief agencies. I ask because you seldom hear of any religious group heading up efforts to administer to the down trodden. Yes, we have charities and missions, but who does the lion's share of the daily living aid. SSA, UNICEF, etc.. Most middle class churches in America today are more concerned with their building funds and physical appearances than visiting the fatherless and the widows.

Personally, I believe that I am socially a communitarian and I do volunteer work weekly. I am not a sophist, I am very fundamental in my faith. However, if I believe that the Holy Spirit has led me to understand Paul in a new way, then, I must be about the work and correct the incorrect when it arises. However, that does not mean seeking meaningless discussions over genealogies and the like. For the Jew, if you could not prove that your mother is a Jew, then you are not a Jew. For us, you and me, if we cannot prove that Jesus is the Son of God then we are arguing meaningless genealogies .

1 Tim 3 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

Titus 3: 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

[twilly]

This is the first counter post, # 1, in a series of counter posts which will handle this advertising rant in a normal, piece-by-piece manner.

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

As everyone knows, Mrs. R....or, rather "jfree"....LOL...practicing Catholics sound the same in tone and tenor and when posters attempt to propagate lies about the history of Christianity, the Church, and Catholicism, there are those among us who are equipped with the education and skill to thoroughly counter such worthless posts. You ought to know this by now, Mrs....opps, "jfree"....LOL

You and Willy both need to reread your posts and see what it is you say.

What we know is, we don't need you telling us what you think we need to do. We know what we posted and you're the one who needs to read our posts since yours contain no known history associated with the planet Earth.

I don't really care if you hate Luther, nor does anyone who is a non-catholic Christian.

First off, if you really didn't care, you wouldn't post this; second, you don't speak for others; and third, I never stated that I hate Luther. What you have stated above contains the essence of why you fail to be taken seriously: you post what doesn't exist.

The above is your attempt to stir up in others the anger you feel. You ought to know by now this doesn't work with intelligent people since you've been attempting to do this for the better part of the year that I've been observing you.

Continuing in your "modus operanti", in the following, verbiose and worthless paragraph of a run on sentence, you rant about nothing and, of course, you not provide a shed of evidence. Instead of properly getting down to the subject, you post this garbage because it makes you feel good even though it's useless.........

The point of fact proven thru history

You post no proven facts, you post no proven historical facts, and your post is pointless.......

and the Vaticans own records is the churches were utter failures and completely corrupt,

"Utter" and "complete" are misuses of sematics, another tactic you use. Fact is, no where in the history of humankind did anyone in an authoritative position in the Church state what you erroneously claim. That there was need of internal investigations, serious considerations, and improvements is true, but this is true with every organization known to humankind, at least, periodically. No one is perfect, not even you as this post amply demonstrates.

they went directly against Christ's own teaches JUDGE NOT,

LOL...first you state there was a need to judge, then you state there was no authority to judge. Can't have it both ways, although you always attempt THIS tactic, also.

Fact is, the Church, and any church for that matter, has the right to DISCERN, first off, and second, the Church is organized under ecclesiastical law and, just as with civil law, there ARE those in authority who make decisions on each and every matters. Non-Catholics will just have to "live with this".

in creating the Holy Office of the Inquisition

This shows you have no background on the history Office of the Inquistion and what it entails, probably because the office was established early on in the Church to question members of the Church who popped up with heretical ideas, such as the Greeks with Gnosticism, Arianism, and countless scores of other off-base philosophies in the first few centuries. If it weren't for the Office of the Inquisition, True Christianity would not have survived the first four centuries. Whether or not you want to avail yourself of this information is your business but, as long as you continue to post in this baloney in forum as you continued to post in the other forum, you will be countered likewise here.

and stood in place of God usurping his right to judge and they burned heretics at the stake,

This further shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding actual events and the penal system of that particular time. The penalty for heresy AT THAT TIME, was death and, since most people today readily accept the death penalty for "murder one", most people accepted the death penalty THEN for heresy. What's more, the numbers of CATHLOLICS who were convicted of heresy AND suffered the penalty of that time have been exaggerated and have gotten larger and larger throughout the centuries. This can't be simply because there are no more CATHOLICS being punished for heresy back in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages are OVER. The "body count"....mostly CATHOLICS, is 5,000 and that figure pales in comparison to the 45,000 Catholic English Henry VIII slaughtered and the 70,000 Catholic Mayan the Protestant president of Guatemala slaughtered between 1970 and 1995. In other words, the Inquistion, which is an internal organization dealing only with CATHOLICS, never did to any of the other groups what the Protestants have done to Catholics AND to other groups for centuries.

they held the same threat over all the Kings and Queens,

Unless you come up with names, dates, and the complete historical details, the facts of history hold that all of the Kings and Queens were Catholic and the only one who became a schmatic was Henry VIII, the one who became a heretic was King James, and they were never "threatened" with anything from the Church but excommunitcation....and, they got what they were looking for.

and oppressed millions with the threat of death,

"Millions"....LOL What a fabrication. The Inquistion only involved CATHOLICS and, again, you can't have it both ways: dissing Catholics while attempting to defend them at the same time.

Luther did what was right. He took that away from them,

The proof has been shown in history up to and including today: Luther blundered badly, and the only thing he "took away" from the Church was his sorry butt, and thank God.

and in doing so the RCC then in the Counsel of Trent declared the Aprocrypha of the OT Deuterocannonical,

This part of the rant makes no sense whatsoever. Since the time of the Apostles, the Deuteros of the OT and the NT were taught, they appeared as Deuteros in the Apostolic Constitutions by or before 400 A.D., and Origen (b. 185) wrote to Julius Africanus stating that the Deuteros were NEVER part of the Hebrew Apocrypha. In addition:

Sts. Ambrose [340-397], JEROME [340-420], AUGUSTINE [354-430], Cyril of Jerusalem [315-386], Gregory of Nyssa [d. 386] John Chrysostom [347-407], POPE ST. GREGORY THE GREAT [540-604], Sts. Isadore of Seville [d. 636], Bede [672-735], Bernard [1090-1153], THOMAS AQUINAS [1227-1274], Bonaventure [1226-1274], and Robert Bellarmine [1542-1621] wrote on and TAUGHT the Doctrine of Puragatory and the associated practice of prayers for the departed.

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.

Some people ought to know about loosing their grip. Christ is the Spiritual Head of the Roman Catholic Church and He has been since His Ascension. This is what those who hate the Church can't stand because as Christ promised His Church, "....and the gates of hell will not prevail against it", so it was, so it is, and so it always will be so.

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,

God's not too pleased, whether or not He's "thanked", and no one forced Luther and that bunch to hang around.

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.

The Council of Trent never made any such statement regarding the Deutercanonicals of the OT because the Church didn't have to state the obvious.

Contrary to your factless rants:

Origen [b.185], eminent Church historian, answered a letter he received from Julius Africanus [160-240], the Father of Christian chronography, in which Africanus stated the following, thus showing his confusing over what is the OT Hebrew Apocrapha and what is not: "Moreover," Africanus wrote, "how is it that they [the ancient Jews] who were captives [in Babylonia] among the Chaldeans, lost and won at play, thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the FORMER captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesided; how is it that such [the captives] could pass sentence of death, and the on the wife of their king, Joakim, who the kikng of Babylonia had made partner of his throne? Then , if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had the captives such mansions and spacious gardens?"

To which Origen replied, "Where you get your 'lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets, I know not, unless it is from TOBIAS; and Tobias (as with Judith), we ought to know the Jews do not use. THEY ARE NOT EVEN FOUND IN THE HEBREW APROCRYPHA, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches USE TOBIAS, you must know that even in captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do."

Therefore, as early as 185, the Church knew the Deuterocanonical Books of the OT were NOT in the Hebrew Apocrypha, although the Jews didn't use them. And it's a fact that just because the Jews didn't use them, doesn't mean they aren't acceptable since Christians are NOT Jews.

Here is a grreat summation on the Apocrypha:

Since this post is the same as the usual long, drawn out, factless rants, I will continue counter-posting against this so-called "great summation" of an obvious misnomer in the next counter post, # 2.

[twilly]

In none of his writings will you find him labeling people or groups. He clearly stated not to socialize with the nonbeliever or the person who would not cease their sin. Please review Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans.

Pharisees, Sadducees, lukewarm "believers", hypocrites, Satan, money changers, blood-thirsty thrill seekers, and those who lie about history, to name a few and He didn't have too many good things to say about them, either.

It's no secret that Christ did NOT say we are supposed to enable the types of "characters" mentioned herein, to rant on by turning a blind eye to their falsehoods. However, I see you have another worthwhile post waiting and I'll check it out.

[tits]

twilly said:

In none of his writings will you find him labeling people or groups. He clearly stated not to socialize with the nonbeliever or the person who would not cease their sin. Please review Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans.

Pharisees, Sadducees, lukewarm "believers", hypocrites, Satan, money changers, blood-thirsty thrill seekers, and those who lie about history, to name a few and He didn't have too many good things to say about them, either.

It's no secret that Christ did NOT say we are supposed to enable the types of "characters" mentioned herein, to rant on by turning a blind eye to their falsehoods. However, I see you have another worthwhile post waiting and I'll check it out.

[cataracts]

tits said:

writings. In none of his writings will you find him labeling people or groups. He clearly stated not to socialize with the nonbeliever or the person who would not cease their sin. Please review Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans.

Christ stated it plainly that we are to love God and our love neighbor. He then made reference to Levitical Law of caring for the alien, orphans, and widows. He also, granted forgiveness to non-Jews (Samaritans and Romans). He listened to the pleas of the non-Jew while he was clearly about the work of his father to take the Word to the Jew. He left the work of to the gentile to Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and others.

One great thing about the Catholic Church in America today, it has a history of fulfilling James' instruction to comply with Christ's teachings.

Question, have the humanist taken our instruction away from us with the social services and UN personal relief agencies. I ask because you seldom hear of any religious group heading up efforts to administer to the down trodden. Yes, we have charities and missions, but who does the lion's share of the daily living aid. SSA, UNICEF, etc.. Most middle class churches in America today are more concerned with their building funds and physical appearances than visiting the fatherless and the widows.

Personally, I believe that I am socially a communitarian and I do volunteer work weekly. I am not a sophist, I am very fundamental in my faith. However, if I believe that the Holy Spirit has led me to understand Paul in a new way, then, I must be about the work and correct the incorrect when it arises. However, that does not mean seeking meaningless discussions over genealogies and the like. For the Jew, if you could not prove that your mother is a Jew, then you are not a Jew. For us, you and me, if we cannot prove that Jesus is the Son of God then we are arguing meaningless genealogies .

1 Tim 3 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

Titus 3: 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Tittus,
Your two posts above were well received. Catholics and Protestants should stick together if that were possible. we do have a common enemy with the secular humanists.

I come from a different background than you do. Fundamentalists came into my family. They married my cousins who then became Fundamentalists in return. They would gang up on those of us who loved our Catholic Faith. We didn't know how to defend against their onslaught. The end results were that they buried us in their many different arguments. There was also a lot of shouting on their part. Also namecalling. The arguments stopped because I didn't know how to defend our wonderful faith and the physical abuse had gotten to all of us.
These Protestants had successfully tore our family apart. To this day there are hard feelings on both sides.
I became determined to never allow this Protestant abuse to ever get the best of me. I studied my Church's teachings. I read and read some more. None of them dare approach me in an argumentitive manner.
What is really queer about the whole thing is that one of the Protestant Fundamentalist families have completely stopped going to their church services. They will not go to the hated Catholic Church because they have said simply too many nasty things against the Papists. One of the other Protestant families still goes to church services but It won't be long before they completely come to a stop. I predict that they also will not go to the hated Catholic Church either. The one thing that stays the same is the divisions within my family over what these fundamentalists have done.

One of the reasons that I contribute to these forums is that I want to be a Catholic voice to other Catholics. If they are in the same conditions that I found myself in, they can believe there truly is an answer to their dilemma.

As far as Catholics and Protestants working together to fend off the secular humanists, I don't think so. I tried this a number of years ago with members of the Christian Coalition. These people hate the Catholics. They don't hate them just a little bit, they hate them a lot. Jfree reminds me of their behavior.

So what should I do? Just curl up in a little ball and pray constantly all day long? Maybe I should. It sounds like a good response to the world around me.
Yea, that sounds pretty good!

Cataracts

[twilly]

Tittus,

I'm researching your great question regarding Ezra. I also must do some running around this morning, Friday, Nov. 17th, but I will return this afternoon and continue researching. Once the results are firmly at hand, I will post you.

I feel that, perhaps, you have been under the wrong impression, Tittus. Therefore, please read and consider my following post to Cataracts.......


Cataracts,

I'm sorry to learn you and your family have been made to suffer as you have at the hands of Protestants. In my off-forum life, my real life, I'm surrounding with Protestants but, I've never had a problem from any of them, they have never been mean or vicious to me, those who are close with me care a great deal for me, and the feelings are mutual. I'm accepted for who and for what I am and I have helped the Protestants in my life with whatever they have needed and I pray, daily, for all who are in my life. There have been times when the Protestants and I have seen miracles together and between us.

I have found that the Charismatic Lutherans [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] and I are on a close "wave length", not in dogma but in spirituality. I attended one of the Concordia Universities owned by the Missouri Synod and it was a wonderful experience. I found the Missouri Synod members are very active in their faith, they are spirit-led, and they produce great Christian art and music, with huge organs and pipes, similar to the Roman Catholic Church. Through their university system, I became a professional stained glass artist and my work is in a number of churches. I also give credit to the dedication shown by their elementary, high school, and college teachers.

In addition, I know a number of non-denominationists who are wonderful people. Some of their teachers are also dedicated and they were good neighbors when I lived near one of their church schools.

The only problem I've experienced is with the poster in this forum, a non-denominationalist, who obviously is not of the same calibre as the non-denominationists I know and who is far from the spirit-led, Charismatic Missouri Synod Lutherans.

[tits]

What is really queer about the whole thing is that one of the Protestant Fundamentalist families have completely stopped going to their church services. They will not go to the hated Catholic Church because they have said simply too many nasty things against the Papists. One of the other Protestant families still goes to church services but It won't be long before they completely come to a stop. I predict that they also will not go to the hated Catholic Church either. The one thing that stays the same is the divisions within my family over what these fundamentalists have done.


This is all too true! I have seen many good families fall. Heck, I almost tumbled years ago. The sad thing is that all too often those who scream the loudest have the least to say.

I have found that the Charismatic Lutherans [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] and I are on a close "wave length", not in dogma but in spirituality. I attended one of the Concordia Universities owned by the Missouri Synod and it was a wonderful experience. I found the Missouri Synod members are very active in their faith, they are spirit-led, and they produce great Christian art and music, with huge organs and pipes, similar to the Roman Catholic Church. Through their university system, I became a professional stained glass artist and my work is in a number of churches. I also give credit to the dedication shown by their elementary, high school, and college teachers.

This is what I was raised. As I said, my paternal grandparents were German Americans. They lived in a rural German community. Though born in America, Grandpa did not learn English until he was in his twenties. We spoke German in their house unless there was company. The Church was one of those picturesque white wooden buildings with tall steeple built on my great grandfather's land. However, I recall that we shared many activities with the Catholic Church in town. It was not until I met Lutherans from the Wisconsin Synod that I really began to hear anti-Catholic rhetoric. I have never met anyone who openly did anything to harm a Catholic even in the Church of Christ. However, I have heard some pretty stupid things from some fundamentalist who had never been in a mass or read the Catechism. I have had some real nasty arguments with Church of Christ members over their statements concerning Catholicism, Judaism, and the Pentecostals. This is what I was attempting Cats to address, how do we know the faith of someone unless we research it. Otherwise we are no better than those Mark Twain accused of second-hand faith and politics.

I do recall that the first girl to get pregnant when I was a kid was a Catholic and some things were said. Unfortunately, the truth is God created humans to be sexual beings. It does not make any difference how deep our faith, the urge and desires are ever present. It does not make any difference if you are a frustrated Monk, nun, Father, Preacher, elder, elders' wifes, faithful member or mediocre, or a church kid; Satan is ever on the prowl and will use the most innocent of circumstances to spring those drives. One thing as a grief psychologist, we are taught to be extra cautious when counseling a grieving or wounded woman. Many a good man and woman have been ruined in the heat of the moment.

Cats, who caused you harm?

[jfree]

Jfree reminds you of this behavior? How about posting that Luther was evil, is that not an attack on anothers faith?

I have never attacked my Catholic girlfriends we just avoid the conversations to avoid any difficulty between us. You came in in the the middle where we who are not Catholic always have to hear that the RCC is the only true church, gee where does that leave the rest of us? That we act against Christ blah blah blah...

The posts I made until I started hearing these kind of things from you and Willy were just posts to information posted to Tittus, then Willy stepped into say I was posting lies, hmmm, what does that say? I got attacked and defended myself period. I provided non-biased sources, PBS and religious tolerance.org, but received no proof of it's incorrectness other than the New Advent website which is strictly biased toward Catholicism. I then get told how I define faith, which I am pretty sure I know better than you how I define faith, it is an act of will. I have never heard it described differently, we CHOOSE to follow the bible, just as we CHOOSE to be baptized, not sure how that means we don't believe in free will.

[jfree]

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

Luther was not a fake, he acted out of concious awareness of evil deeds and misleading dogma. He did not to seek to destroy the RCC but to reform it, but the RCC would not listen, that I am afraid is entirely their problem.

He saw acts, additions and false doctrines being taught and stood up to it. Most non-Catholics DO NOT have ANY of the Deut/Apocrypha in their bible, it is a very rare thing indeed. There is nothing wrong with questioning the actions teachings and dogmas of your religion, God never said he wanted blind followers of men, he wanted us to follow Him and HIM alone. Early Church History bears out that there was no RCC, no Pope, no Palpacy nor supremecy of Rome, that came w/Constantine, a Pagan who sought to direct the Church into something he wanted it to be. Nowhere in the bible does it allow for man's traditions to override or even be on equal standing to the word of God, in fact it states the exact opposite. This is where the division between Catholic Christians and Christians comes in, it isn't a judgement against you personally but a choice to choose do we follow men or do we follow God? Did Jesus' followers call themselves Catholic or Christian, did they say follow the traditions of men or the teachings of Christ? If you can show me a real quote from the early Church where it says Catholic, Pope Apostallic Succession then I will believe it, and I mean pre-Nicean not post.

[tits]

is the greatest blessing and the most damning curse:

Free will

God never said he wanted blind followers of men, he wanted us to follow Him and HIM alone.

God could do whatever He felt necessary, yet none of the scriptures tell us that God wants as automatons. Yet, He destroyed Israel, the Northern Tribes, because they reject him. The action did not differentiate "good from bad" followers. This is what I perceive as the curse of "freewill".

[twilly]

Hi, Tittus. I'm finally finished researching Ezra and there's some fairly interesting information.

The Tanakh is basically the Mishnah in written form. The part that I was wanting to discuss is whether your information had any reference to Ezra going into a 40 day trance and rewriting the books of the law. I believe that you both are correct, both the 430 b.c. gathering of the elders that led to the compilations of the historical writing available writings and the council took years to compile. Heck, Ezra made several references to books of the annals of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and other neighboring kings in both Ezra and Nehemiah.

The Book of Ezra is about the priest and scribe, Esdras, who was connected with the restoration of Jerusalem after the return form exile. The chief source of information touching on his life are the canonical books of I Esdras (Ezra) and Nehemias, or Nehemiah.

Esdras identifies himself as belonging to the line of Sacdoc and styles himself "son of Saraias", who is the chief priest, Saraias, in IV King 25:18-21. Be that as it may, Esdras is known mostly as "a ready" scribe (a skilled scribe), skilled in the Law of Moses.

Esdras was commissioned by King Cyrus of Persia to go to Jerusalem and minister to the Jews. The king granted him the authority to rule the Jews with the total support of the Persian treasury. When he got to Jerusalem, he was aghast at their flagrant disobedience to the Law of Moses and with their intermixing with and marrying of outsiders. He instituted reforms and got them back on track.

Esdras read the Law after the rebuilding of the wall, which took place after the temple was completed. The Jews found in the Law the directions concerning the feast of the Tabernacles and steps were taken for the re-establishment of the celebration. Esdras' role in the restoration of the Jews left a lasting impression upon the minds of the people. This is due mostly to the fact that Jewish life was shaped on what he re-established and restored and in never departed from this. There is probably a great deal of truth in the traditon which attributes to him the organization of the synagogues and the determination of the canonical books among the Jews. Esdras' activity seems to have extended further. He's credited in the Talmud with having compiled "his own book" (this is to say Esd-Nehem) "and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles as far as himself." (Treat. "Baba bathra", 15a). Some modern scholars regard him as the last editor of the Hexateuch, whereas, his part in the compostition of Esdras-Nehemias and Paralipomenon is doubted. And it is certain he had nothing to do with the composing of III and IV Esdas---as they are titled by the Original, the Catholic, Christians.

I need to touch on the serious confusion created in the 16th Century as to the mis-titling of the four "Esdras" Books. I Esdras or Ezra, and II Esdras or Nehemiah, were assigned these titles by St. Jerome. This books are canonical but, III and IV Esdras are apocryphal. And this serious mis-titling is even more confusing than the mislabeling of the seven OT deuterocanonicals as aprocryphal. The Protestants call I Esdras or Ezra, and II Esdras, or Nehemais, III Esdras and IV Esdras, repectively, and III and IV Esdras are apocryphal.

In the minds of the Jews, Esdras' personality and activity assumed gigantic proportions. He was looked upon as a second Moses to whom were attributed all institutions which could not possibily be attributed to Moses. Esdras established for the Jews what the Early Church, up until about A.D. 400-600, established for the Catholics, e.g., a Scripturally-based, structured organization. According to the Jews, he restored from memory--an achievement little short of a miracle--all the books of the Old Testament, which were believed to have perished during the Exile. He also replaced, in copying the Holy Writ, the old Phoenician writing by the alphabet still in use. Although both the time and the place of his death is unknown, the was--but maybe not anymore due to the situation with Iraq--on the banks of the Tigris, near the place where this river joins the Euphrates, a monument purporting to be Esdras' tomb and which, for centuries, had/has been a place of pilgrimage for the Jews.

The apocryphal book, III Esdras--titled properly by the Original, Catholic defintion of the book--is similar to I Esdras, or Ezra, but the history goes backwards in time, or counter-chronologically, and scholars are led to believe that it was compiled in lower Egypt during the Second Century B.C., it was not written by Esdras, but it closely resembles Daniel and prehaps its author is the same one as Daniel.

IV Esdras, is also apocryphal properly titled by the Original, Catholic definition--or improperly titled II Esdras by the Protestant English "title". The Protestant English mis-titled it because it begins, "The second book of the prophet Esdras". The problem with this mis-titling is evident because I Esdras or Ezra and II Estras or Nehemias were at one time both in the same book...they were one book...and they were the first book. In any case but on top of the confusing situation this causes, IV Esdras is sometimes referred to as the Apocalyse of Esdras. This work has not been perseved in the original Greek text but, there exists translations in Latin, Syriac, Arabic ( two independent versions), Ethiopian, and Armenian. The Latin text is usually printed in the appendix to the additions of the Vugate.

This book is made up of a series of visions Esdras supposedly had at Babylon in the 13th year after destruction of Jerusalem. However, the date given is wrong by about a century. One of the supposed visions "foretold" of the Messianic Age, in another vision, a respresentation of the Roman Empire under the figure of an eagle was "foretold", followed by a vision describing the rise of the Messianic kingdom, and the last vision narrates how Esdras restored the 24 books of the OT that were lost and how he wrote 7 books of mysteries for the wise among the people. Therefore, these visions and this supposed "restoration of 24 books of the OT" is where there may be a connection to " a trance" and some supposed "writing/rewriting" of the OT, BUT, this book is NOT canonical....either Catholic or Jewish.

IV Esdras is reckoned among the most beautiful productions of Jewish literature. The main portion is undoubtedly the work of a Jew--whether Roman, or Alexandrian, or Palestianain, no one can tell. As to its date, authors are most widely at variance and all dates have been suggested from 30 B.C. to A.D. 218. Scholars, however, seem think it's around the year 97 A.D.

I also agree that those men at the council took great care to insure that they were guided by the Holy Spirit to collect the writings into the Canon. What intrigues me are the few references by Paul in various letters to "previous letters" and "Peter's writing". Those Pauline letters were written before Peter put his thoughts to paper. So what were those other writings. Some have argued that those previous writings were earlier books, however, some of the references in them do not match the earlier books.

How do you know the letters you mention were written before St. Peter wrote his Epistles? Is there an authentic, existing letter or document in which either Sts. Peter or Paul state "Paul wrote letters before Peter wrote Epistles"?

Epistles were letters to various churches [which were the private residences of members of the Church] and Epistles were written here and there, now and then. In the middle of that, the Apostles wrote letters to others and to eachother. What the Church has is what survived from the Apostles or what was FROM what they wrote.

For instance, at one time, there had been what was left of the original writing of the Apostles' Creed, written by the Apostles on Pentecost, after the conversion of 3,000 people. That document was translated just before it completely fell apart due to the fact that paper, or whatever any given material was used in writing, deteriorated. Many letters that are mentioned in the New Testament were never found, not because they weren't written, but because of the fact that the Apostles were "wanted men" and they were on the run and/or hiding out all of the time. As a matter of fact, the reason why St. Peter went to Rome is because the Jews in Jerusalem were determined to kill him. The writings that HAVE survived are the Epistles to the various churches because the churches (again, people's homes) were stationary and the homeowners had means to keep them, and, several churches had the same Epistles because one church copied the Epistles of another church, as long as each church knew, beyond a doubt, any given Epistle WAS that of an Apostle.

We begin to see more writings as time went on that were produced by those who were ordained by the Apostles, especially if they became bishops. These bishops include Sts. Polycarp and Papias, both ordained by St. John, and St. Peter ordained St. Ignatius of Antioch and St Clement of Rome (became the fourth Pope) and it was St. Clement of Rome who wrote "Recognitions", the website I posted to you. There were many other bishops ordained by the Apostles, such as the second and third popes, Pope St. Linus and Pope St. Anacletus. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul, ordained by St. Polycarp, wrote regarding the second and third popes,

"After the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul had founded and set the Church in order in Rome, they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. His successor was Anacletus."

The THC did a piece over the last few years concerning the "lost books of the bible" that introduced some writings that I have never heard of. I agree that those writings were probably excluded by the Holy Spirit, but...

If I had to depend upon receiving my information regarding the Early Church from the TV, I wouldn't be an Original Christian. Everyone wants "a piece of Christ" THEIR way, even if they have to invent stories, and they DO have to invent stories. TV progams are designed to un-convert viewers and they'll state the most outrageous fiction to accomplish their goal. If you never heard of these so-called books, most likely neither has anyone else.

the new Humanist and agnostics are using those on their web sites as proof that the bible is garbage.

If you never heard of them but you know those books are being used on those websites, then what are the names and the authors of those books, what are the alledged dates those books were written, what alledged cross-history backs them up, and how does the site answer the question, how can any books of the Bible be "lost" when all the books of the Bible are IN the Bible? And, do you think you'll learn the truth from those websites? Catholics don't go to atheistic websites for theology since those sites are anti-theology. That's about like chosing the negative number 3, let's say, for the positive number 3, or like believing them if they say daytime is night time. LOL

Cats I refer to the new Humanist because the new or revised doctrine is far removed from those of the early Hegelian and Sophist. These people are closer to Marx in their perspective of “organized religion”.

They've ALWAYS been Maxists. Nothing new.

Our battle today should not be between Protestant and Catholic, Pentecostal and Protestant. Our battle today is against the secular humanist who have divided us and allowed the false teachings of the Mormon’s and Jehovah Witnesses and others to be examples of faith.

A battle can't be won by a divided house and Protestants are the divided and fragmented groups. The Catholic Church has always been, is, and will always be united. This is because, in part, throughout the centuries, if a member chose to be a heretic, he had to go. The Church does not compromise on Dogma, ever.

I salute both of you for your faith. My faith is just as strong but only God knows your heart and mine. While I strongly disagree with your opinion on Luther, that is your opinion and that is fine. I learned a long time ago that I suffered from what Samuel Clemens identified: "Where prejudice exists it always discolors our thoughts." Your statements appear to qualify also.

Old Sam was NOT a theologian, especially not a Catholic one.

However, I found that the majority of people's beliefs regardless of where I traveled in the world. "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." (Mark Twain)

The Catholics have the First of all Christian Faiths, it's the only TRUE, COMPLETE Christian Dogma, and we intend to keep it that way. Others can do as they please since they will and they always have, anyway, their heads are in the sand and they like it that way. It's the same old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

If the plain facts of history, which are accepted for everything else, are refused regarding Christianity, just because someone's been fed a bunch of bull, and would rather get their religious education from "Reader's Digest", or "Family Circle", or would rather panic over an atheistic website, then they are too busy to conserve their energy and do the intelligent thing.....LEARN FROM THE PROPER SOURCES.

I believe this terrible Jihad in which we have been labeled the great Satan is an example.

WHEN DID IT START? Trace it back. What groups are fragmented to hell and back as a result? Not the Catholics. What groups are always running around with questions all the time? Not the Catholics. What groups have invented the most outrageous interpretations of St. John's Book of Revelations? Not the Catholics? What groups are always pointing their boney fingers while erroreous claiming, "It's all the fault of the Catholics" when THEY made their own choice and apparently aren't happy with that?.....for sure, it's NOT the Catholics.

Over here, most people think that those people hate us because of Bush. Over there, most people think all Americans are whoremongering homosexuals wanting to push our lack of morals on the rest of the world.

Who cares? When that pack of murdering mad men threw a two-year-old temper tantrum over a simple, ancient, unanswered question then went on a vandalism rampage and killed a nun, on top of 9/11 when our family lost a member in the Towers.....WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY THINK because they have no brains. The only "good one" is a DEAD one.

I do not mind discussing these topics with you because you clearly have not gotten your information second hand. However, the majority of our brotherhoods have.

That's THEIR "head-in-the-sand" problem.

In fact, if the numbers are correct, less than 20% of either the Protestant or Catholic self-espoused believers attend services more than twice a year.

IF the numbers are correct. First off, they may not be. Second, to find out, a poll has to be taken of every Christian faith in the U.S., or some other country, and whatever the percentages are, they would need to be compared within the same county. BUT, that doesn't cut any ice with Catholics since there's no sense in attending a non-Catholic church because the TRUE, COMPLETE Christian Faith IS IN the Catholic Church.

When I lived in Italy in 1976, a survey in the local paper had a headline that “5% of Catholics attend Church!

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read? Tell you what! Go to St. Peter's Square when the Pope is about to make a balconey appearence and take a look at THAT crowd!

Is the Church dead?”

Why should a non-Catholic care? The Church is only THE Church for Catholics and the last time we checked, it's still functioning and it always will. If it "dries up" in the U.S., I HAVE to leave because Catholics NEED the Eucharist. No big deal. I've lived abroad before.

This post is way too long and I can see by the following, that you're getting into the Luther garbage again. So, I'll look it over and see about responding to the remainer in a subsequent post.

[tits]

I have read some of what you offered in my sources but find that some was still new. Wouldn't if have been wonderful to have seen and shared some of those long lost writings.

One false writing that I have heard discussed but never read is one called the "Gospel of Judas". In this source, Judas claims that Jesus is the Christ and that his death was all a plan between him and Christ. Those that believe this claim that it was Judas' lap onto which Jesus reclined at the last supper. Another is the Gospel of Mary of Magdalene. I do not know anything about this one.

I too am way to busy right now. I would love to tear in and discuss of the finer things.

As you can tell I am a bit of a Clemens pessimist on society. I fear that we, the Western Christendom is headed toward another dark ages. I have found myself wondering more and more what I will be willing to lose should it come down to stating my faith or life. After facing death three separate times, once in war and twice with cancer, I feel (note feel) that I would chose faith. However, I have disappointed myself many times in the past.

Great read and well established post.

Your coffee friend.
Dave

[tits]

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 came across this and thought it worthy of sharing. While I personnally view Islam as a false teaching, one full of intolerance, hate, and lies. I have been and am intrigued with their ties to our founding fathers. I have also been intrigued as to why they have been silent on many of the big debates in the West. I was thorughly trashed by the THC Lefties over my views on creationism. But...

"Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey"

..."At first sight, it looks like it could be the work of United States creationists, the Christian fundamentalists who believe the world was created in six days as told in the Bible.

But the author's name, Harun Yahya, reveals the surprise inside. This is Islamic creationism, a richly funded movement based in predominantly Muslim Turkey which has an influence U.S. creationists could only dream of.

Creationism is so widely accepted here that Turkey placed last in a recent survey of public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries -- just behind the United States."