Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[guanophore]

The Greek word, as you know, means Called out! It suggest those who answer the call out into the public.

I know that you have a unique spin on this word, and it seems to work for you, but this is not what the writers of the NT had in mind. For them, “called out” referred to being called out of the world, and into the Kingdom, such that they were no longer “of this world” just “in the world” as pilgrims.

The Church does have an organizational aspect to her. But that organization is subject to it’s local bodies with it’s local traditions and customs in each generation. At least this is what we find in the 1st. and 2nd. century.

Where are you finding this? It appears that you may be limiting your study of history so that any Catholic inferences can be avoided. Irenaeus is probably much too Catholic for you to read!

The notion that Peter was ruling the entire Church by 42 a.d. with all other apostles in subjection and that the CC had this rule from Rome, is simply not historically correct and difficult to take seriously.

Certainly, but yet, it is another strawman, a claim that Catholics do not make. Jesus gave Peter the care and feeding of the flock, with no jurisdictional restrictions. He had this charge from Christ at all times and in all places. It is unlikely that he was in Rome in 42 AD, but whenever he arrived there, he always had the attitude of a servant, and did not see himself as a “Ruler”. Since you agree that your formulation is not historically correct, why not avoid spewing out such drivel?

 

[guanophore]

Yes tg denies much. After many years on this forum, he’s been given evidence NOT OPINION, in avalanche proportion for Catholic Truth going back to the first century and Jesus and the apostles…

We are certainly in agreement, and I used your words as a muse to post things responding to tgG. He may not benefit from them, but others may read them and find them instructive.

Keep sailing, Yeoman!

 

[tgGodsway]

I have backed up this point on several occasions MT. Let me give you another example:
It was at the council of Trent that the CC officially decided to accept the apocryphal books into the canon of scripture. This matter, today, has been traditionally accepted into the CC as gospel truth.

But after studying the history of these books we can learn it wasn’t the protestants who first excluded them. It was the 1st. Century Church and Christ himself.
The Hebrew Old Testament was completed some four hundred years before the time of Christ. In the second century B.C. a Greek translation by Hebrew scholars was made in Alexandria, Egypt, and was called the Septuagint because the translators numbered 70. I’m sure you know this.

They developed an important difference, however, between the Greek translation and the Hebrew cannon, since the Septuagint contained a dozen or more Apocryphal books interspersed among the books of the Hebrew bible. But not all copies contained the same books, suggesting that there was no general agreement among the translators as to which of these additional books were authoritative.

The Septuagint translation came into general use in Palestine, and that was the popular version at the time of Christ. But the Palestinian Jews never accepted the Apocryphal additions.

So the reason why the protestant Church removed these books was to return to the original 39 books of the Old Testament that were in the Hebrew bible at the time of Christ. Christ, nor his disciples ever referenced these books, though they did reference every major Old Testament book and all but four minor books. They never taught any of the content of the Apocryphal books or even acknowledged them. Their silence to this was a huge statement against them.

Yet the CC’s tradition included the teaching of purgatory and they officially declared it a “truth,” at the council of Trent, not to mention other teachings such as praying for the dead.

So, I’m sorry MT if you don’t like it, but this tradition established at Trent flew right in the face of scripture, but it did so, not at the reformation but at the coming of Christ.

 

[tgGodsway]

It is not/was not Sacred Tradition that bothered the Reformers, but the corruption of clerics claiming to embody it. This and the conflation of ecclesial power/position with secular precipitated the political and economic frustration that burst through with Luther.

I do not think that Luther’s only complaint was the abuse of indulgences, hence, we have a 95 point thesis. Much of it was doctrinal. what the heck, the entire CC’s understanding of indulgence was doctrinal.

 

[tgGodsway]

This does not mean, however, that salvation is any kind of “pending obligation”. Salvation is a work that begins at the moment we are born again, and is completed when we are united with our inheritance, kept imperishable for us in heaven. It is a hope, that which we work out while we live on this earth.

guanophore, you need to hear yourself here. For you, salvation is a pending obligation! As you say, “Salvation is a work that BEGINS at the moment we are born again, and is COMPLETED when we are united with our inheritance… in heaven.”

Thus you enter into a journey leading to a completed work in heaven. If, along the way, you take an exit from this narrow road, you then disrupt the whole process and may forfeit the ultimate gift=destiny=heaven.

Again, the gavel of JUSTIFICATION has not yet been finalized and approved until/unless you work out your deliverance.

None of this sounds like a simple gift to be received in a moment of time and without dutiful strings attached demanding your works to secure it all.

 

[guanophore]

I have backed up this point on several occasions MT. Let me give you another example:

It was at the council of Trent that the CC officially decided to accept the apocryphal books into the canon of scripture. This matter, today, has been traditionally accepted into the CC as gospel truth.

I think the opposition was that you were accusing Catholics of doing things “contrary to Scipture” or directly opposed, was it? I don’t see how this example can suffice, since it was the CC that developed the canon in the first place. The index to Scripture is not part of the Scriptures.

Your accusation that the “council of Trent officially decided to accept the apocryphal books into the canon” represents another calumny against the CC. What occurred at Trent was an official pronouncement of what the Church received from the Apostles. These books were never considered “apocryphal” by the Church. They were classified like this by the Reformers, largely as a foundation to deny Catholic doctrines. On the contrary, no Bibles existed before that time that did not include these books. The Church makes such pronouncements when heresy is rampant, not because they are “new”. If this allegation has any merit, then you will also have to reject the Nicean Creed and the word “Trinity” which was adopted by the Church to stand against rampant heresies about the nature of the Godhead. Are you suggesting that the Church did not believe in the Trinity until 325 AD? In the same way, Trent pronounced what has always been believed and accepted by the Church. Nothing was “added” (except that the CC “added” the entire NT.)

But after studying the history of these books we can learn it wasn’t the protestants who first excluded them. It was the 1st. Century Church and Christ himself.

I am not sure what you are “studying”, but at least 80% of the NT quotes come from the Septuagint. Some of Jesus’ teaching is clearly a reflection of these books, along with prophetic words about His crucifixion.

I’m sure you know this.

Yes, but we also know something they did not, which is that the deuterocanonical books were also written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that they did not have any extant copies of them in the original at the time led them to doubt whether they were originally written in that language.

 

[guanophore]

So, I’m sorry MT if you don’t like it, but this tradition established at Trent flew right in the face of scripture, but it did so, not at the reformation but at the coming of Christ.

There is no Scripture that states the Church does not have the authority to determine the canon of Scripture. You may wish to believe this because you deny the Authority Christ gave to the Church, but if you hold this line of thought, then there is no validity to the NT canon, either! No validity to the Apostles’ creed, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the Theotokos, observing Sunday as The Lord’s Day and too many Apostolic traditions to count.

The CC has always declared these “truths”. At Trent they were framed as official Dogma, which is necessary at times to prevent the faithful from falling into rampant heresies.

I think you will have to find some other example of “flying in the face of Scripture”. What you have offered is that the Deuterocanon contained disputed books. This has nothing to do with “flying in the face of Scripture”, it has to do with what is considered Scripture, which is not in Scripture!

 

[MT1926]

So, I’m sorry MT if you don’t like it, but this tradition established at Trent flew right in the face of scripture, but it did so, not at the reformation but at the coming of Christ.

Once again you prove how uncharitable you are. Even when I say please you go and do it again.

How does anything you said here fly right in the face of Scripture. Please point out where scripture tells us which books belong in the Bible. The only way to prove the Deuterocanon is contrary to the Bible would be if the Bible says so? The only thing you prove here is your tradition is contrary to the Catholic tradition, big deal.

I find it hard to believe you honestly don’t know what the definition of contrary is?

Here I will give it to you again.

Contrary to the Bible would mean the exact opposite of what is written in the Bible.

Where does the Bible tell us which books belong in the Bible?

You are showing everyone a prime example of a protestant who just won’t listen?

If you want to give Palestine Jews the credit for your Bible, more power to you. Personally, I don’t believe Christ gave them the authority to do so, but to each his own. I tend to go with what Jesus and the early Church said, but hey knock yourself out.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I do not think that Luther’s only complaint was the abuse of indulgences, hence, we have a 95 point thesis. Much of it was doctrinal. what the heck, the entire CC’s understanding of indulgence was doctrinal.

No, he had other complaints, but what took those complaints into a world wide religious split had more to do with the German princes using Luther’s complaints as a leverage point to stop the flow of revenue going to the Vatican. This is not doctrinal, but political and economic. The Church responded to the 95 theses, and reforms were made to prevent abuses. The Reformers went on creating new doctrines, and then began to quibble with one another about the new doctrines. The Puritans left England to escape the oppressive Anglican Church, then when coming to America, did not want anyone in their communities that did not share their faith. So the division continues to this day, each man interpreting the Scriptures as best he knows how, and drifting further and further from Sacred Tradition. You are right, there has been some backflow, by the mercy of God, faithful persons who accept Apostolic faith recognize when some of these driftings have gone too far, and have jumped off the sinking ships of heresies back into more traditional communities. Jesus wanted us all to be One, as He and the father are One. This cannot happen, tgG, when you are practicing false witness and calumny against the Church.

guanophore, you need to hear yourself here. For you, salvation is a pending obligation! As you say, “Salvation is a work that BEGINS at the moment we are born again, and is COMPLETED when we are united with our inheritance… in heaven.”

I am sorry, I don’t understand where there is a pending obligation, except maybe on God’s part, as He has promised to complete the work He has begun in us. The Kingdom of Heaven is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is not burdensome to follow His commands. If we love Him, we will obey Him, not out of obligation, but out of joy!

Thus you enter into a journey leading to a completed work in heaven. If, along the way, you take an exit from this narrow road, you then disrupt the whole process and may forfeit the ultimate gift=destiny=heaven.

This is the nature of free will. God is not interested in forcing people to spend an eternity with Him. He invites us, but if we choose to walk away, He will let us.

 

[guanophore]

Again, the gavel of JUSTIFICATION has not yet been finalized and approved until/unless you work out your deliverance.

It seems that you have had a misunderstanding here. Human beings cannot work out our own deliverance. Deliverance was purchased once for all on the cross. This is a free gift that is given to us by the Holy Spirit, it cannot be earned. I think you have misunderstood "work out your own salvation " for work “on” salvation. There is a world of difference between these two. We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works.

“For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good pleasure.” Phil . 2:13

If you go on to the very next verse, you can see how this work occurs. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do.

None of this sounds like a simple gift to be received in a moment of time and without dutiful strings attached demanding your works to secure it all.

I expect you have been trained in a warped perception of grace working within the believer, or perhaps, just that Catholics do not understand how grace works. I will conceded that there are too many Catholics that don’t get it, and think they need to “work on” rather than “work out”, but this is a matter of being poorly catechized.

The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. God is at work in us to will and to do because this is Catholic. Our good works secure nothing, and the only “strings attached” are His Holy angels guarding and guiding us on the path to heaven.

 

[MT1926]

Christ, nor his disciples ever referenced these books, though they did reference every major Old Testament book and all but four minor books. They never taught any of the content of the Apocryphal books or even acknowledged them. Their silence to them, was a huge statement against them.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

continued…

 

[MT1926]

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

 

[MT1926]

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

 

[MT1926]

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used. Paul urges Timothy to hold fast to the Scriptures which he was taught from childhood (v.15). He refers to the Greek Septuagint, since Timothy was uncircumcised and raised in a Gentile environment by a Greek father (Acts 16:1-4).

Knock yourself out

 

[tgGodsway]

You are the one who has introduced the qualification that the successor of an Apostle had to be an eye witness, not me.

Well, actually I am not in agreement there was any successor to the 12 apostles at all. Those twelve have a very distinct role to play in the Millennial reign of Christ. But I do believe there is in addition to them, a secondary class of Apostle given to the Church (with four other offices) as taught by Paul in Ephesians 4:11. But the original 11 plus one were of a special case, see Acts 1 to address your concern about being an eye-witness to the resurrection.

If Peter was the chosen Apostle to become a Bishop to oversee the Church Universal and thus needed a successor at his death, I would think his successors were totally equal to him in their role as vicar of Christ or holding the office of Christ.

But I guess I am putting the cart before the horse here. So far, no one has proven from the divine record that Peter either held two positions at the same time, or dropped the Apostleship to become a Bishop. Just because the Acts 1:20 passage said that Mathias was to take the overseeing office=bishoprick, why should this mean Mathias now stood in that office (of Bishop) as described in Paul’s teaching on overseeing eldership, found in 1st. Tim. 3:1. That same Acts 1 passage tells us that Mathias was numbers among the 11 APOSTLES seeing that he too was an eye-witness to the resurrection. Letting scripture interpret scripture, He stood in the office of Apostle yet he functioned as one who oversees from that office. It’s that simple.

So if we apply this concept to the whole issue of Peter and his successor; is there a case to be made that Peter’s successor truly qualified? I don’t think so. If Peter is the first of a line, and Peter was a special Apostle who saw the resurrected Christ, every successor must match those qualifications, wouldn’t you think?

You say oral tradition placed Peter in Rome as a Bishop, therefore it was so. We are to believe, not from divine scripture but a word of mouth decree, (so to speak) that by 42 a.d. he was standing in, and functioning as, the chief Bishop over the entire world and all of the Apostles were in subjection to his rule. How can 11 other Apostles of their caliber be in subjection to a mere Bishop? Or, was he still an apostle who saw the resurrected Christ? Was his successor considered to be an Apostle too?.. if not, why did he qualify to take Peter’s place?

If only God’s word (both O.T. and New) would give us even a hint about this, perhaps it would have changed things. What a blunder.

 

[tgGodsway]

I am not sure what you are “studying”, but at least 80% of the NT quotes come from the Septuagint. Some of Jesus’ teaching is clearly a reflection of these books, along with prophetic words about His crucifixion.

I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water guanophore. I was merely stating that contained within the Septuagint was the added apocryphal books. But among those books was a discrepancy among the Jews as to which ones were authoritative.
The protestant reformation simply returned to the original 39 O.T. books written in Hebrew, seeing that Jesus and the Apostles (who were totally aware of the books) never quoted them at any time during their ministry calling it the word of God.

What occurred at Trent was an official pronouncement of what the Church received from the Apostles.

Apparently, the Church fathers at Trent were not aware that Jesus nor His Apostles ever referenced the apocryphal books in their ministry. Again, Church tradition proves to be weak, unreliable, and out of sink with divine scripture.

On the contrary, no Bibles existed before that time that did not include these books.

uhhh… yes, the O.T. bible in Hebrew was completed about 400 years before Christ. It did not have these books contained.

 

[tgGodsway]

Just to be clear, I am not stating that the original 39 books of the O.T. completed 400 years before Christ had come, has errors. no… they are inspired by God for sure. But the collection of (other books) into the volume of the O.T. in the second century BC, to which Christ did not use in his ministry, was a flawed collection. Even the Jews were not in agreement over every book. When Trent came along centuries later and wanted to officially declare them as the word of God sighting the Apostle’s authority, that authority was never declared.

It’s that simple.

 

[tgGodsway]

Jewish History gave us 39 O.T. books. Jesus quoted from almost all of them. There’s your N.T proof. It is a historical fact that the Septuagint came in the second century BC and added to the 39 books. Some copies have as many as 15 more books added. The fact that there are quotes found in the N.T. from the Septuagint, yet no quotes from the Apocryphal books, only support the historical understanding that not all Jews were in agreement about those books. Jesus and the Apostles supported the more conservative Hebrew version, while other Jews supported the Alexandrian version. The CC chose to go with the Alexandrian version.

But even Josephus, (according to Loraine Boettner in his book Roman Catholicism on p. 82) “… the noted Jewish historian about 90 ad gave a list of the books of the Jewish law and prophets, but he did not include the Apocryphal books. Other Jewish sources support Josephus. The Apocrypha was rejected by Origen, who is generally acknowledged to have been the most learned man in the Church before Augustine, by Tertullian, an outstanding scholar in the early third century, by Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea and by Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate which became the authorized Roman Catholic Bible.”

Jerome declared emphatically that the Apocrypha was not part of the Old Testament scriptures. However, against his wishes and his better judgment, he allowed himself to be persuaded by two of his bishop friends who admired the books of Tobit and Judith to make a hurried translation of those.

No… there was a divergence of opinion in Jesus day, yet the CC went with the more liberal point of view incorporating those books, despite the disagreement found within.

Is this the first time you’ve heard this?.. you sound frustrated MT. Do not be.

 

[guanophore]

Jewish History gave us 39 O.T. books. Jesus quoted from almost all of them. There’s your N.T proof.

The same Jewish faith gave us the Septuagint, tgG. The majority of the NT quotes are from the Septuagint. That makes your assertion a very poor proof. If you wish to use the canon chosen by the Jews who rejected Christ, that is your perogative. You have proved nothing.

It is a historical fact that the Septuagint came in the second century BC and added to the 39 books.

Indeed yes. This is the collection that was used by the Apostles. Of course the Jews would choose a canon that would not support Christians! If it were up to the Sadducees, there would only be the Torah.

not all Jews were in agreement about those books

This is still no "proof’ that the Church is “against scripture”.

Jesus and the Apostles supported the more conservative Hebrew version, while other Jews supported the Alexandrian version.

If this were true, then the research would not support the opposite.

The CC chose to go with the Alexandrian version.

Yes. This is what was passed to us through the paradosis.

 

[MT1926]

Is this the first time you’ve heard this?.. you sound frustrated MT. Do not be.

Why would you think it is the first time I’ve heard any of this spin?

Why do ignore 4 posts full of references of quotes and pawn it off as me taking out my frustrations?

Did you give an honest read of any of the verses I posted and looked up the corresponding verses in the Deuterocanon? Or did you just turn a blind eye?