Luther was a piece of work.

[jfree]

Too true Tittus.

[tits]

most favorite aunt. Her husband was the Elder of the St. Louis Diocese and her youngest son is the man who met a wonderful woman during his final year of studying for the priesthood. Her middle son was ordain a deacon into the same diocese of his father. "Father Tom" my cousin, left the priesthood, married, and has two sets of twins. He is very devote to his Diocese in Illinois.

Sister, after my years of study and experience have led me to concluded that Jesus is searching for our hearts and not our faithful worship inside a set church (lower case). The book of Mordecai speaks as does Paul in 1 Corinthians against worship for worship's sake. I believe that brothers and sisters are located throughout the world and can be found in all denominations. Having said that, I must also admit that I believe that those denominations that refuse the deity of Christ or who make us gods along side of Christ are of the devil and are not our brothers and sisters. (You can fill in the blank for the names of those groups)

The citations concerning the differences between the Catholic and Protestant information was for j. and came from one of the current recognized biblical scholars, Dr. Hank Hannegraaff. It does not necessarily match my personal opinions, but does offer a foundation for many to understand the differences.

Those differences, as you have hinted, are matters of interpretation of the scriptures. We recently viewed the Dead Sea Scrolls display, WOW!. What really struck me, right between the eyes, turns out to be the virus that will destroy the agnostics and atheists who claim that we cannot trust the scriptures because so many people have written, re-written, and re-interpreted the scriptures. For there in the Dead Sea Scrolls were the Hebrew words that we still read the same today. The books found and translated include two of the Apocrypha: Maccabees and one other.

A way to really stir my anger is to cite a scripture out of context and then use "necessary inference" to support a "group speak" interpretation. I have participated in this group speak belief perseverance and am so ashamed of it. Some of those concepts are being expressed throughout this discussion. You are correct to point out my lack of understanding in Catholic doctrine, I did not attend Catholic Catechism. Your comments concerning Lutherans is just as flawed as you did not attend Lutheran Catechism. Your opinions of Churches of Christ is also flawed, just a j's view of the Catholic. An expression, which I am sure j. has heard is now my personal mantra. If I can read the scripture and gain some insight into its context then why do I need some man, who is no greater or less than I, tell me the scripture does not mean what it states? "I will speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the scripture is silent."

Ergo, the words and theme of the book we love has not changed from those that group of Essen monks sought to preserve 2200 years ago.

The "Old Testament Apocrypha" is my clarification of the word Apocrypha. Many today, non Catholics, seem to want to point to those books that do not deal with Christ as proof that they should not be included in the Protestant bible. For me personally, these books are excellent sources of Jewish history for the "inter-testament" period. No, I have not read all of them, but those that I have have done nothing to cause doubt in my faith.

[jfree]

Cat, the Apocrypha was first termed by Jerome in referring to non-biblical books that weren't in the right language nor were professed to be devinely inspired, they would be what is now referred to as Deutero books by the RCC. They were also called Apocrypha by the Glossa Ordinaria until the reformation, then they became deutero.

[cataracts]

Hi Tittus and Jfree,
Interesting comments all around. If we were speaking face to face, there's not a doubt in my mind that Jfree would have scratched my eyes out. Tittus, I think you would have walked away angry.
But enough pleasantries, let's get to the matter at hand.

The most striking difference between the Protestant and Catholic Bible (Old Testament) are the 7 books that are in the Catholic version and are absent in the Protestant version. These books are named: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, I and II Machabees, and three documents -----the supplement to Esther, The Canticle of the three Youths in Daniel, and the stories of Susanna and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon.

That's it. These are enough but that's all there is!

To draw a sharp line between the Hebrew Canon and the Catholic Canon, Luther defended his position by cutting out I & II Machabees. In his disputation at Leipzig, in 1519, his opponent, Eck, was proving the doctrine of Purgatory when Luther boldly spoke out and said that I & II Machabees were outside the Canon. Luther's Bible, published in 1534, said that the Machabees Books and the other 5 deuteros were relegated , as apocrypha, to a seperate place between the two testamentsOf course, all the reformers that came after Luther used him as a model for what they would do. Of course they changed what Luther did, but he was still their model.

Because of Luther's actions, The Council of Trent solemnly declared as "sacred and canonical" all the books of the Old and New Testaments, with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition. There was never any real question as to the acceptance of the Traditional Scripture. What is exceptional is that there never was any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings.

The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial traditiion as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition

The Council of Trent put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics.

Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deutero writings from their canons. The Protestants have classified these books as 'Apocrypha'.
These 'so called apocrypha' books have been part of the Catholic Bible since 400 AD. They are going to stay there. No one is going to take them out. They are just as sacred as the rest of the Bible. There was never any doubt to the Catholic Church.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Cat, the Apocrypha was first termed by Jerome in referring to non-biblical books that weren't in the right language nor were professed to be devinely inspired, they would be what is now referred to as Deutero books by the RCC. They were also called Apocrypha by the Glossa Ordinaria until the reformation, then they became deutero.

Jfree,
I have to mention this one point. Jerome had no authority, by himself, to determine what was non-biblical and what was biblical. It could never be his decision to determine what language was right or wrong. He was a member of the group that decided on the canon of the Bible. By himself he had no power to do anything.
His claim to fame was that he translated the Bible into the vulgar Latin.

Cataracts

[tits]

Canon request.

Have you read either The Works of Josephus or Erastus? I have wanted a copy of each for years. These Jewish historians wrote around 80 to 100 a.d.. concerning the same events that the Apocrypha cover. Those 430 years between Ezra and Christ have greatly intrigued me for years.

If some of the Jewish historians that I have read are correct that, then I have no reason to deny the accounts of the Apocrypha are worthy of inclusion into the bible. I ask both of you to share why we have the scriptures? The answer is given by Paul.

According to one Jewish historian, Zechariah, Haggai and others sent out "70 elders" to search the lands for the lost books and the law when they returned to Jerusalem. As you know the construction of the Temple was stagnated for 20 years during Zechariah's time. Ezra and Nehemiah were sent to Jerusalem around the time of Zechariah's death and took up the quest for the Law. Supposedly, according to Erastus, Ezra gathered all of the books fond and for "40 days and 40 nights neither slept nor did he eat". During that time Ezra was guided by the Holy Spirit and rewrote the entire Torah and Talmud. This is why some of Moses' books taken on a third person past tense praise of Moses.

Finally, we have the Prophecy of Malachi and the story of Ester around 390 b.c.. The books of the Apocrypha take up from there and end approximately 140 b.c. with the accounts of Judas Maccabees and his brothers.


Cat, as I have said. The Apocrypha are good historical books but the NT is the NT. I have no problems with them.

Yes, I might have reacted with anger, I have a bad habit of reacting-in-kind to selfishness and insult. But you have not insulted me.

Thank you sisters for these great discussions.

Dave

[jfree]

Nah, I wouldn't scratch anyone's eyes out, but I do often respond to being insulted by insulting the offender, not very christian of me, but it happens.

I don't have a problem w/the books of the Apocrypha per se, but do not think that we should include them as actual scripture. Even in the RCC until the reformation, you can read the Glossa Ordinaria for proof, that they are interesting as historic books, for edification but not true scripture. Origen, Jesephus and Jerome all say this books were not inspired, they don't claim inspiration, and that they were written long after during the time that there were no prophets and were in the wrong language. The books were added to the Septugaunt late and as a side note, that is why they were included, but they were never honored as holy by the Jews even prior to the coming of Christ.

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Nah, I wouldn't scratch anyone's eyes out, but I do often respond to being insulted by insulting the offender, not very christian of me, but it happens.

I don't have a problem w/the books of the Apocrypha per se, but do not think that we should include them as actual scripture. Even in the RCC until the reformation, you can read the Glossa Ordinaria for proof, that they are interesting as historic books, for edification but not true scripture. Origen, Jesephus and Jerome all say this books were not inspired, they don't claim inspiration, and that they were written long after during the time that there were no prophets and were in the wrong language. The books were added to the Septugaunt late and as a side note, that is why they were included, but they were never honored as holy by the Jews even prior to the coming of Christ.

I realize I have to say this one more time. The Jews had and have no input into the canon of the Catholic Bible. It doesn't make any difference what they say about anything. It's only the Protestants who feel that the Jews have an important role to play in 'their' Bible.
One more time: Jerome has nothing to say about the validity or, lack there of, in the Catholic Old Testament. He was one man. What he agreed to or disagreed to by himself has absolutely no binding force on the Catholic Bible. One man plays all the difference with the Protestant Bible or even making a whole new Protestant religion, but it doesn't work that way in the Catholic religion. It never has and never will work that way.

I realize why Protestants cannot understand this point. They have never even imagined any of their religions working in this manner. But there it is!

The canon of the Catholic Bible was chosen, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, in and around the year 400 AD. This canon includes the seven books and parts of others that Luther took out. All seven are part of the only true Bible that exists. I don't care what Protestants call these books or what the Jews call these books, these are part of the Bible. The Protestant reformers went to great pains to discard these books. They gave all kinds of explanations as to why they could not be included in the canon. Their explanations are nonsense. They are no more true than their religions. Granted, the majority of Protestant religions do have truth in them, however, they don't compare to the Catholic Church's true grasp of "the Truth". The Protestant religions will never have the appropriate grasp of the truth because they started out in this world as heretics and rebels against the truth.
It cannot be said any more plainer than this. Protestant Church's are a dwarfed limb forced upon the trunk of Christianity.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

Tittus,
Below is a statement you made above. Please explain why you made them.
Thank you,
C.



"Cat, as I have said. The Apocrypha are good historical books but the NT is the NT. I have no problems with them."

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Nah, I wouldn't scratch anyone's eyes out, but I do often respond to being insulted by insulting the offender, not very christian of me, but it happens.

I don't have a problem w/the books of the Apocrypha per se, but do not think that we should include them as actual scripture. Even in the RCC until the reformation, you can read the Glossa Ordinaria for proof, that they are interesting as historic books, for edification but not true scripture. Origen, Jesephus and Jerome all say this books were not inspired, they don't claim inspiration, and that they were written long after during the time that there were no prophets and were in the wrong language. The books were added to the Septugaunt late and as a side note, that is why they were included, but they were never honored as holy by the Jews even prior to the coming of Christ.

Jfree,
Maybe you could tell me where you read that glossa ordinaria. Who wrote it and what year was it written in?

It's interesting that you don't think the seven books left out by Luther should be included by actual Scripture. Please read my post just above where the Council of Trent took the trouble to not only say they are included as actual Scripture, but go on to say that it is actual Scripture from the time it was first included in the canon.
I guess another Protestant disagrees with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church!

Cataracts

[cataracts]

Jfree,
The word 'apocrypha' as used to describe the seven books was soley used by Protestants. Catholics used the word 'deutero-canonical' to describe these books. The word 'deutero' was used by Catholics as a short form of 'deutero-canonical'.

One other point, which I only mention in passing, is that the seven books were considered Scripture since they were put into the canon of the Bible around 400 AD. All the Council of Trent did was to reiterate this fact.
It was Luther and his dubious followers that decided these books were not Scripture. This is the only reason that the Council of Trent even mentioned them.
One more time: Luther and his reforming and presumptuous followers decided they knew better than anyone else.

I have a theory which I would like to prove if possible. The theory is this:
Luther and his reformers are directly responsicble for World War I and World War II. Millions died and millions more suffered horribly because the arrogant and presumpuous reformers had to have their rebellious ways. They planted a seed which flowered in misery and bloodshed.

Cataracts

[tits]

Cat, my searches of the various bibles cannot find any glaring differences between the two versions of the New Testament. The story is the same.

The seven "deutero-canonical" books commonly referred to as the Apocrypha are excellent accounts of God working through "His People" during the "dark ages" between Ezra/Ester and John-Mark's gospel of the early 50s. The 30 or so additions or omission of the other OT books do not take away or add to the theme of God. The strange thing about Ester is that God is never once mentioned.

I must admit, that as a budding ol'psychologist, I have found your perspective on this discussion very reminiscent of the "Victim Mentality" prominent of so many in our day. In fact many of your arguments are displayed on the following "blame game" Catholic site. www.catholicapologetics.net/protestant_inquisition.htm

As a middle-aged white man of German American descent (with an eighth Cherokee), I do not understand the victim mentality. I do not understand why mankind tends to expend so much valuable energy attacking the perceived oppressors for perceived insults. I do not understand of what use it fulfills to keep pouring salt into old wounds to remind us of the pain. This does not mean that insults and harm has not been committed by many in the name of god and country. Or that we should not remember to enable us to learn from those terrible experiences. I find the entire 300 years of the great Inquisition an insult against man, God, and Jesus' Church. I find the entire Crusade repulsive because greedy men used the Church to gain politically and financially.

The OT Leviticus law of an "eye for an eye" and a "life for a life" is an unwritten law behind much of the Iraqi and Muslim conflict today. It is the foundation for many of the feminist actions and "sexual harassment" suits today. It is the foundation for many of the African American for not achieving. It is the foundation for petty political disagreements. Just yesterday a local female Democrat lost her bid for Kansas City mayor because of a criminal legal action against her and her husband proclaimed it all a Republican conspiracy. The funny thing is that no Republican is running for mayor.

I feel a great deal of compassion for what the Europeans did to the American Indians, that is a genocide as repugnant as that committed by my German relatives against the 5.9 million Jews and 5.8 million "others", or Stalins "purges" that claimed an estimated 55 million lives. I have toured one of the sites of a Concentration Camp "Bergen-Belsen" and wept the entire time. I wept bitterly in the basement of the US Holocaust Museum standing before that pile of shoes because I suddenly realized that I could have been one of those young men wearing "feldgrab" processing the "vermin". I become very angry when I hear some red-neck refer to the Indian as "praire African-Americans". I was beat silly by five black youths 30 years ago and find that anger is the first thing that I feel when I see a gaggle of black males laughing and goof'n in a crowd. I was chased by a group of Korean males with harm in their intent while working overseas because I was a big German American in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was doing noting but sight seeing. I did smart off to those five teens: "My ancestors did not own any slaves, we hated everybody that was not German."

Cat, we all have many many hurts and fears, it is only by the grace of God that we can put that "sheeit" behind us and move on. I will admit that I find several of the "Christian" denominations repugnant. However, I must admit that I find several words from Christ even more frightening and confrontive. "Depart from me, I never knew you." "I will spew you out because you are neither hot nor cold."

We, you, j, me, and others here are searching for God in our daily walk. We each chose our path based upon what we see, hear, and comprehend about the path before us. We all know that Satan is constantly seeking to mislead us and even provides a lighted path for us to follow until we get off the narrow way. What I want for me is to find that way and to follow it. To be bold where we need to be bold. Right now we must be bold, unified, and speak out in our courts and politically. The ACLU and the far Left have so distracted the majority of Americans, even God-fearing Americans, that we are losing our right to worship Christ and to proclaim the good word.

Go to the ACLJ and view the variety of challenges we are losing.
www.aclj.org/About/

Sister, your bible and mine both proclaim the same message.
JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE LIVING SON OF GOD, WHO CAME TO SEEK AND SAVE THE LOST. SALVATION IS FOUND ONLY THROUGH HIM. Everything else has been tainted by learned men and women since the last Apostle and disciple who knew Christ personally died. Paul's parting words to the "brothers and sisters" in Ephesus were a warning against the wolves that are coming to corrupt and destroy the word. I see no difference between your heart and mine. I do see vast differences in our concept of worship, but Christ and God both spoke that they do not want our worship, but our hearts and minds. Worship that flows from a love of God is full of the Spirit. I felt it with 55,000 other men of all denominations at the 1992/1993 Promise Keepers rallies.

What is it in this discussion that causes you so much hurt?

[jfree]

Cat, the term Apocrypha was coined by JEROME, don't know how many times it needs be said, it comes from the Greek language, not an Old English, German, or Celtic term which is what Protestants would have used. See our old thread, this term was used IN the Catholic bible, it was backed up by a Pope, Gregory the Great, by Thomas Aquinas and the council of Trent.

The Glossa Ordinaria was the part that gives scriptural interpretation and information written by CATHOLICS, and was part of the CATHOLIC bible since around 1000ad until the Reformation, and the Council of Trent, which I have read many times.

The Jews were the keepers and authors of the OT, I tend to take what they said and kept together for the OT in the Bible as important, don't know why anyone wouldn't. Since it was THEIR prophets, even Jesus was of their lineage, don't think I will be disagreeing w/them on it. They didn't consider it part before the Birth of Christ before any of us had any kind of way of reaching God thru Christ. What they did and said prior to Christ was done in Authority as only they had covenent w/God at the time.

[tits]

[cataracts]

Tittus and Jfree,
Both of you are nit-picking. Your only defense against what I have written is to quote what the pagans are doing against 'us'. By the way Jfree, I never said Jerome didn't coin the word apocrypha. I have no idea where the word came from, and I am very careful about believing anything that you say.
Protestants have been attacking Catholics for as long as I can remember. Catholics have done one of two things in return: 1)walk away or 2) convert to some Protestant religion. Both of these alternatives are very poor. You Protestants have had your say for a long time. It's ending!! Those timid, stupid, ill-informed Catholics are going away. They are being replaced by men and women that know their religion and will stand up for it.

The Protestants and the Catholics are 'not' on the same side. They never have been. Protestants will either convert to Catholicism or disappear. It's the only choice you have. The Protestant religions have proven time and time again that they are vacant, hollow, and know nothing (except how to attack the Catholic Church). Indeed, attacking the Catholic Church is the only thing that Protestants are good at.

You make it sound like we are on the same side against all the pagans out there. There are Pagans that attack our Church, but they are nothing like you Protestants. There is no unity between our religions. There never will be. Protestants have attacked us right from the start and they have never stopped. We are still here. How long will you be here?

Why is it important that the Protestants disappear? Because the pagans would like nothing better than to divide and conquor. They have done a good job of it for the last 75 years.
It was always a dream of our hierarchy to have a unified Christianity, but, from my experience, its a waste of time.

Cataracts