I could use some help/prayers

[SHW]

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Canon 36 reads:"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra,** two books of the Maccabees**. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.

“Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated” (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)."

Two key points should be noted. First, while the names and divisions of some Old Testament books differ from contemporary usage (for example, the four books of Kings are, in modern Bibles, divided into 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), the canon is that of the Catholic Bible, not of the Protestant. Second, this canon was to be confirmed by the “Church beyond the sea”–which means Rome.

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

I think you need another look at the comparisons: ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html and envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

I already answered this above.

The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Women had no status in the OT. They were treated as possessions.

Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Eve did commit the first sin. But, it was not until Adam ate the fruit because he wanted to please Eve, that we lost eternal life.

Genesis 3:16-17 "To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

to be continued…

 

[SHW]

Continued:

Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus​

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

Josephus is a Jewish historian. He has no authority for either the Jews or the Christian Church.

Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

Neither of these men are infallible by themselves. Each person can have his own opinion until the Church pronounces a ruling. The Church, the Pope and those bishops (Magisterium) who are in communion with him, are infallible when they make official pronouncements regarding faith and morals. envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Click this link; it is just for Catholics.
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

This is an anti-Catholic site. Quote: "Let’s take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin. Sirach teaches that a person can be justified by another method apart from substitutionary sacrifice." End of Quote.

Acts 10:1-5 “There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, (Gentile) a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”
4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?”
So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.”

1 Peter 4:8 "And above all things have fervent love for one another, for love will cover a multitude of sins.

Matthew 15:4-9 "For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Loving your parents covers a multitude of sins. Not honoring your parents causes you to worship in vain.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Seeking12]

“Plucked” is an action toward someone, taken by another.
*Plucked *says nothing about the very real opportunity, through free will, to Jump from the hand of God.

To say that even we cannot jump, is to say our free will has died. Scripture speaks nothing of this incapacity of ours to freely jump.

**
Plucked, in the sense we are speaking, means one cannot be taken from the hand that it is in. If you were in God’s hand, and you are not, then you could not escape His hand. You propagate another gospel and make God a liar.**

 

[Seeking12]

Yes, I know what ignorant means, but thanks for the help. My OP said there were approx 38,000 Christian denominations and you said that it didn’t mean squat because of the divisions in the RCC. So no, you didn’t say that there were 38K divisions in the RCC. I agree that being a Christian has nothing to do with religious denomination. I also don’t believe that the RCC is a denomination. It is Christ’s Church on earth. I don’t boast in that fact, it just is what it is.

Hey Brad, the church I belong to started on the day of Pentecost. That church had no priesthood, except that of the High Priest, Jesus and all believers were considered by God as a “Royal priesthood”, no altar, no fancy dress or ritual, no non accessible pope either. Does your church look at all like the true church of Jesus?

 

[paul_c]

**
It would be a complete waste of time reading books about a subjects I know are unbiblical. The Church put itself in a bind by lashing out at the reformers (ie Council of Trent" and canonization of the apocrypha ) Now it is stuck teaching with books they know are not inspired; have put on par with Scripture, but are forced to teach otherwise so as not to lose credibility within the Church.**

DeRonde, it is a shame that you are declining to educate yourself on the Catholic positions that you are so ready to denigrate. How do you know these subjects are unbiblical? Which authority on the bible told you so and what are there credentials? Or is it unbiblical, just because you said it to be so? Don’t you owe it to yourself to understand why the Church teaches these things and why they thing they are consistent with Scripture. The wise man seeks the truth, The fool seeks to make his own views the truth.

As for your understanding of the Canon, it is completely without merit. The church did not ADD the deutorcanonical books then. It simply reiterated that it was always Church teaching that they were part of the Canon. In fact, those books are quoted many times in the New Testament books which you do accept. You would know this if you read the resources we are providing. The truth will set you free, if only you are called to the truth. Unfortunately, to many the truth will remain hidden. They will look but not see and their hearts will be hardened.

 

[paul_c]

Hey Brad, the church I belong to started on the day of Pentecost. That church had no priesthood, except that of the High Priest, Jesus and all believers were considered by God as a “Royal priesthood”, no altar, no fancy dress or ritual, no non accessible pope either. Does your church look at all like the true church of Jesus?

Have you ever read the Acts of the Apostles? Try reading Acts 2 again. Who speaks up and explains what just happened? Peter. Who tells the first converts what to do? Peter. What does he tell them to do? Be baptized into the Church. Who administered this? The Apostles, the first priests of the Church. This is the church you currently deny is the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, and which you remain estranged from, not by force but by your own free will. The Catholic Church will accept all those that come to it…

 

[Tomster]

DeRonde:
**Before you post in response to another poster; it helps if you are able to discern between a believer and a non-believer in the passage you are quoting; handling the word of God with accuracy is important to God and therefore should be important to you.
**

Philippians 1:3-6** "I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. {For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus."

God does not loose anyone who is truly saved; one that has truly believed in the only begotten Son of God; Jesus Christ. He starts the work and finishes the work…justification, sanctification to glorification…you cannot not work the salvation work; however you will, if you are a true believer, participate in the works that God preordained for the believer to walk in them.**

First of all re-read post # 27. Second, let the person I addressed in that post answer for himself. Thirdly it is obvious you did not read the preceding posts I used to refute the person I was addressing.

If you need more Scriptural evidence that refutes all of that eternal security nonsense I will give it to the both of you.

Romans 2:6
Romans 8:12-13
Romans 11:20-22
1 Corinthians 3:17
1 Corinthians 4:5
1 Corinthians 6:8-9
1 Corinthians 9:27 - 10:6
1 Corinthians 10:11-12
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
2 Corinthians 20 - 6:2
2 Corinthians 11:3
2 Corinthians 12:21 - 13:5
Galatians 5:19-21
Galatians 6:7-9
Ephesians 5:5-6
Phillipians 3:10-16
Collosians 1:21-23
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
2 Thessalonians 3:6,14
1 Timothy 4:1
1 Timothy 5:15
1 Timothy 6:10-19
1 Timothy 6:20-21
2 Timothy 1:15
2 Timothy 2:12
2 Timothy 2:17
2 Timothy 4:10
2 Timothy 4:16
Titus 1:16
Titus 3:10
Hebrews 2:1
Hebrews 3:1,6
Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:1
Hebrews 4:11-13
Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:4-6
Hebrews 6:11-12
Hebrews 10:26:27
Hebrews 10:35-38
Hebrews 12:1,3
Hebrews 12:14-17
Hebrews 12:25,29
James 1:14-16
James 1:21-22
James 2:13-14
James 4:4
James 5:9
1 Peter 4:17-18
1 Peter 5:8
2 Peter 1:9
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:14-17
1 John 2:24-26
1 John 2:28
2 John 8
3 John 9-11
Jude 5
Revelation 2:5
Revelation 2:10
Revelation 2:16
Revelation 2:23
Revelation 2:26
Revelation 3:3
Revelation 3:11
Revelation 3:16
Revelation 3:21
Revelation 16:15
Revelation 22:12
Revelation 22:19

I would recommend to the both of you to blow the dust off your bibles and read these passages before you comment on this topic again.

 

[Alindawyl]

It would be a complete waste of time reading books about a subjects I know are unbiblical. The Church put itself in a bind by lashing out at the reformers (ie Council of Trent" and canonization of the apocrypha ) Now it is stuck teaching with books they know are not inspired; have put on par with Scripture, but are forced to teach otherwise so as not to lose credibility within the Church.

How do you know that what the Church teaches is unbiblical when you won’t even read the Church’s own statements? You’re relying 100% on third party sources. Doesn’t that seem a little disingenuous?

The Church is not stuck with anything. The Church is doing exactly what Jesus intended. No matter how many people may disagree with her, no matter how many of her teachings we may not fully understand, no matter how many of her own members or even leaders may not properly pass on those teachings, no matter how much stubborn human pride gets in the way, the Church will prevail. Why? Because she was built by Jesus Christ himself, to lead us to him.

It’s all about Jesus. We accept the authority of the Church because she’s the best and surest way to get to know Jesus, at least as sure as we can be about salvation when free will and a fallen nature are part of the picture. All other ways are at best pale imitations possessing less than the fullness of God’s revealed truth. They can lead us to salvation in an extraordinary fashion in so far as they conform to what the Church teaches, but why place our trust in the uncertainty of extraordinary means when the ordinary means are right in front of us? Jesus built the Church because he knew exactly what we needed - a big flashing neon arrow pointing directly at him. Every Mass we get plenty of Scripture to digest and think about, giving us information about Jesus so we can better know and love him. But even more important than information we get Jesus himself. He’s REALLY there - body, blood, soul and divinity - drawing us closer to him every time we celebrate. It’s one thing to read about Jesus via the Bible, but another thing entirely to experience his Real Presence.

I often get a little giddy and emotional just thinking about it. He suffered and died for our sake. He’s done so much for us and asks what is really so very little in return. Our Lord humbly waits for us to receive him in a worthy manner at every Mass, not because he needs us but because WE need HIM.

What in the world does your church have to offer that can even begin to approach the Eucharist?

By your own admission you would rather believe lies about us than learn what we truly believe. If you’re only here to be critical based on what you not only don’t understand but REFUSE to understand, then what are you hoping to accomplish? Do you really expect us to put aside the fullness of God’s revealed truth and the Real Presence of Jesus in our lives to follow your example of… what? Closed-minded disdain based on claims that are not even true?

I don’t hate you. I can’t. You profess to love Jesus, and I can’t bring myself to hate a fellow brother/sister in Christ. At this point in my life I can’t even bring myself to hate murderers and thieves, people the world thinks I should hate. Pity yes, but not hate. Jesus didn’t hate, and although it’s a struggle we are charged to do our best to emulate his example. His example certainly didn’t include being permissive of that which is wrong. We must always stand up for what is right and true. I pray that you will open your heart to consider what the Church offers as a path to Jesus, and if you won’t that you at least receive the grace to make an act of perfect contrition when the time comes. It’s all in God’s hands, after all, not ours

 

[bradwill911]

Hey Brad, the church I belong to started on the day of Pentecost. That church had no priesthood, except that of the High Priest, Jesus and all believers were considered by God as a “Royal priesthood”, no altar, no fancy dress or ritual, no non accessible pope either. Does your church look at all like the true church of Jesus?

Please do yourself a favor and do not read anything from the early Church Fathers. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, your conclusion about the early Church would change. It’s one thing to say that you are the original Church founded by Christ, but it’s another thing to actually be that Church.

From St. Justin Martyr (written around 150 AD): “On the day, which is named after the sun, all those who live in the city and in the country come together, and then the memoirs of the apostles (meaning the Gospel) or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president (or priest) makes an address (or sermon) in which he earnestly admonishes us to practice the beautiful lessons which we have just heard. Then we all rise and pray.”

“Then bread and a chalice with water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren. He receives these and offers praise to the Father of all in the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and continues at some length with a prayer of thanksgiving (Eucharistic prayer) because we have been made worthy by him to partake of these gifts. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present answer: Amen (the Great Amen). After the thanksgiving of the president and the answer of the people, the deacons, as they are called among us, distribute the bread and wine over which the thanksgiving has been pronounced…we do not receive it as common food and common drink, since we are taught that even as, by a word of God, Jesus Christ our Savior became flesh, so, too, this food over which has been spoken his word of prayer and thanksgiving, is the true flesh and blood of that Jesus who became man, and enters our flesh and blood when we receive it.” (chapters 65-67 of St. Justin’s First Apology)

I’m just guessing that your church service is a little different than how the original Christian Church celebrated. To a Catholic, this passage sounds familiar.

 

[DeRonde]

DeRonde, it is a shame that you are declining to educate yourself on the Catholic positions that you are so ready to denigrate. How do you know these subjects are unbiblical? Which authority on the bible told you so and what are there credentials? Or is it unbiblical, just because you said it to be so? Don’t you owe it to yourself to understand why the Church teaches these things and why they thing they are consistent with Scripture. The wise man seeks the truth, The fool seeks to make his own views the truth.

As for your understanding of the Canon, it is completely without merit. The church did not ADD the deutorcanonical books then. It simply reiterated that it was always Church teaching that they were part of the Canon. In fact, those books are quoted many times in the New Testament books which you do accept. You would know this if you read the resources we are providing. The truth will set you free, if only you are called to the truth. Unfortunately, to many the truth will remain hidden. They will look but not see and their hearts will be hardened.

At least you admit they did it later; they used them as devotionals not as Holy Scripture. The EFC’s agreed.

 

[DeRonde]

First of all re-read post # 27. Second, let the person I addressed in that post answer for himself. Thirdly it is obvious you did not read the preceding posts I used to refute the person I was addressing.

If you need more Scriptural evidence that refutes all of that eternal security nonsense I will give it to the both of you.

Romans 2:6
Romans 8:12-13
Romans 11:20-22
1 Corinthians 3:17
1 Corinthians 4:5
1 Corinthians 6:8-9
1 Corinthians 9:27 - 10:6
1 Corinthians 10:11-12
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
2 Corinthians 20 - 6:2
2 Corinthians 11:3
2 Corinthians 12:21 - 13:5
Galatians 5:19-21
Galatians 6:7-9
Ephesians 5:5-6
Phillipians 3:10-16
Collosians 1:21-23
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
2 Thessalonians 3:6,14
1 Timothy 4:1
1 Timothy 5:15
1 Timothy 6:10-19
1 Timothy 6:20-21
2 Timothy 1:15
2 Timothy 2:12
2 Timothy 2:17
2 Timothy 4:10
2 Timothy 4:16
Titus 1:16
Titus 3:10
Hebrews 2:1
Hebrews 3:1,6
Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:1
Hebrews 4:11-13
Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:4-6
Hebrews 6:11-12
Hebrews 10:26:27
Hebrews 10:35-38
Hebrews 12:1,3
Hebrews 12:14-17
Hebrews 12:25,29
James 1:14-16
James 1:21-22
James 2:13-14
James 4:4
James 5:9
1 Peter 4:17-18
1 Peter 5:8
2 Peter 1:9
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:14-17
1 John 2:24-26
1 John 2:28
2 John 8
3 John 9-11
Jude 5
Revelation 2:5
Revelation 2:10
Revelation 2:16
Revelation 2:23
Revelation 2:26
Revelation 3:3
Revelation 3:11
Revelation 3:16
Revelation 3:21
Revelation 16:15
Revelation 22:12
Revelation 22:19

I would recommend to the both of you to blow the dust off your bibles and read these passages before you comment on this topic again.

**
Tom,

You can read the Bible all you want; but unless you are regenerate, which you have proven otherwise, you cannot understand what you read. No eternal security, not for you, but I can speak for myself and I know with certainty that my home is in heaven and I will be with the Lord; as I am already.

I read 4 of the above passages at random and to no surprise; you are totally ignorant of Scripture.Ignorance is curable; but only by the hand of God.**

 

[paul_c]

At least you admit they did it later; they used them as devotionals not as Holy Scripture. The EFC’s agreed.

Don’t put words in my mouth. Holy Scripture has been consistent since the mid 300s. The Council of Trent merely reiterated the position so that the Portestants would understand. Show me where the ECFs treated them as devotionals.

 

[SteveGC]

**
Plucked, in the sense we are speaking, means one cannot be taken from the hand that it is in**

Exactly. And being taken is an act of another person, not oneself.

**If you were in God’s hand, and you are not, then you could not escape His hand. **

Oops, you just said being plucked means being taken…not escaping. Which is it? Scripture seems to infer it’s exclusively an act of someone or something else, not of oneself.

Lastly, thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my salvation. Appreciate it Must be nice to be elected, huh? Kinda like a God-complex? What’s that feel like?

 

[paul_c]

**
Tom,

You can read the Bible all you want; but unless you are regenerate, which you have proven otherwise, you cannot understand what you read. No eternal security, not for you, but I can speak for myself and I know with certainty that my home is in heaven and I will be with the Lord; as I am already.

I read 4 of the above passages at random and to no surprise; you are totally ignorant of Scripture.Ignorance is curable; but only by the hand of God.**

Again, DeRonde, where are your credentials that show that you speak for God on this. Speaking for yourself isn’t very convincing. I wouldn’t bet my soul that you are right, merely because you say so. Give us a reason to do so. You are brazen about saying that others are ignorant merely because they disagree with you. Prove in anyway that you are correct in this assessment.

 

[SteveGC]

Again, DeRonde, where are your credentials that show that you speak for God on this. Speaking for yourself isn’t very convincing. I wouldn’t bet my soul that you are right, merely because you say so. Give us a reason to do so. You are brazen about saying that others are ignorant merely because they disagree with you. Prove in anyway that you are correct in this assessment.

Yeah, I just don’t get this new-fangled evangelization (or proselytization) technique. I mean, who are they successful with? “Hi, this is what I think the Bible says, because I’m ME, and you can trust me because God told me you can. Yes, that’s right, I’m ELECTED. What? You want to be that too? Hmm. Nope, too bad, if you don’t already know that you are, welp, then you’re NOT. Sorry. But hey, no worries, listen to me ANYWAY, cause I know what I’m sayin”

What’s the track record with credentials like that? Could you even put it on a post-it note?

 

[DeRonde]

Don’t put words in my mouth. Holy Scripture has been consistent since the mid 300s. The Council of Trent merely reiterated the position so that the Portestants would understand. Show me where the ECFs treated them as devotionals.

The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. (Remembering the combination of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc.) Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26). (As with any good book.) Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)

 

[DeRonde]

Lastly, thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my salvation. Appreciate it Must be nice to be elected, huh? Kinda like a God-complex? What’s that feel like?

**
Posting Error…sorry Seeking12**

 

[paul_c]

The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. (Remembering the combination of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc.) Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26). (As with any good book.) Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)

You are taking some liberties here. The ECFs are clearly not in agreement on the deutorocanical books. Here is the view from the Catholic Encyclopediahttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Also, you should recognize that in Eusebius, many of the NT books you quote regularly, like the letter to the Hebrews and Revelations, were also in dispute at the time, as were James, Jude, 2Peter and 2 and 3 John. (history of the Church book 3, chapter 25). Until 382, the Canon was not set and when it was, it included the same list at that used in Trent.

 

[DeRonde]

You are taking some liberties here. The ECFs are clearly not in agreement on the deutorocanical books. Here is the view from the Catholic Encyclopediahttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Also, you should recognize that in Eusebius, many of the NT books you quote regularly, like the letter to the Hebrews and Revelations, were also in dispute at the time, as were James, Jude, 2Peter and 2 and 3 John. (history of the Church book 3, chapter 25). Until 382, the Canon was not set and when it was, it included the same list at that used in Trent.

The true point here is that the Catholic Church put itself in a bad place, in my opinion and others, by allowing books that have errors as part of Catholic Scripture as a knee jerk reaction to the reformers. Now they are stuck with error. Error is not from God is it?

 

[paul_c]

The true point here is that the Catholic Church put itself in a bad place, in my opinion and others, by allowing books that have errors as part of Catholic Scripture as a knee jerk reaction to the reformers. Now they are stuck with error. Error is not from God is it?

You are not paying attention. The Canon has been unchanged since 382AD, roughly 1100 years before any of the Reformers were born. The books you descibe as having errors are actually referenced dozens of times in the New Testament. What errors do you think they contain anyway?