Why--because YOU say so, as opposed to the rest of Christendom at Hippo and Carthage? Okay...if that's what helps you sleep at night.
Could you cite when they were designated as not canonical before the council of Trent? IF you knew what you was talking about, and I swear I gave the link here, you would know that the earliest official bible for liturgy of the whole church was the Latin Vulgate. The same Latin Vulgate St. Jerome translated which included the deuterocanonical books. Which all of that predates the Council of Trent for a very long time.
. Funny. Learn history Quantrill. Its useless to say they were just magically added at the council of Trent. Especially when history records its use of these Deuterocanonical books before it as authorized for liturgy
Jerome who translated the Septuigent into Latin, the Vulgate, said so. The Jews of the land of Israel, from whom the Old Testament comes from, said so. Quantrill
They were rejected by Jerome as canonical. Jerome translated the Septuigent into the Latin Vulgate. Jerome identified these books as Apocryphal. Later the Cathoic church designated them deuterocanonical. They were rejected by the Jews of Israel, from whom the Old Testament came from. The Apocryphal books have been included in early Bibles, but have been specifically labeled as not authoritative Scripture. Quantrill
Really? Obviously you didn't read the article I linked to OR the Vulgate of Jerome since those books ARE indeed in there and Jerome recognized the authority of the Church in declaring them canonical. Um...AFTER that upstart Jesus of Nazareth went and fulfilled all that prophesy and started a new religion! The Jews of the 1st century used the Septuigint, and the books are in the sacred scriptures Jesus used. Good enough for Jesus, good enough for me!
really????? The first 2 Matthew 4:4 and Matt 4:15 are not references. 4:4 references deuteronomy 8:3 and Matt 4:15 has nothing to do with 1 macc 5:15. Did you even cross check the verses. I stopped when the first 2 were bogus.
It's ok the same way it was ok for the aspostles to forbid Mary Magdalene from putting her Gospel in the bible, because they don't agree with them.
Doesn't matter what Jews have. St. Jerome gave his opinion and said he did, as well as spoken on the jewish argument, but added that the authority of the Chruch over rules both. That was when he was putting the Latin Vulgate together. If what you say is true, then he should have never said that. Just more proof that the church just didnt mysteriously put the books into cannon. They were already there in the Vulgate being read in church. I also see you ignored my other post. As usual. You keep on proving that you are nothing but an ignorant fool who does not know history and ignores what he doesn't like. Go away now child.
Elijah--let me save you some trouble. I think the clearest reference--found nowhere BUT in a book that Catholics have in their OT, but which is not included in the Protestnt OT--is the story of the seven brothers referenced in three of the four gospels. Here is the story from Tobit: Tobit 3 [7] On the same day, at Ecbatana in Media, it also happened that Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, was reproached by her father's maids, [8] because she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmodeus had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife. So the maids said to her, "Do you not know that you strangle your husbands? You already have had seven and have had no benefit from any of them. [9] Why do you beat us? If they are dead, go with them! May we never see a son or daughter of yours!" [10]When she heard these things she was deeply grieved, even to the thought of hanging herself. But she said, "I am the only child of my father; if I do this, it will be a disgrace to him, and I shall bring his old age down in sorrow to the grave. [11] So she prayed by her window and said, "Blessed art thou, O Lord my God, and blessed is thy holy and honored name for ever. May all thy works praise thee for ever. [12] And now, O Lord, I have turned my eyes and my face toward thee. [13] Command that I be released from the earth and that I hear reproach no more. [14] Thou knowest, O Lord, that I am innocent of any sin with man, [15] and that I did not stain my name or the name of my father in the land of my captivity. I am my father's only child, and he has no child to be his heir, no near kinsman or kinsman's son for whom I should keep myself as wife. Already seven husbands of mine are dead. Why should I live? But if it be not pleasing to thee to take my life, command that respect be shown to me and pity be taken upon me, and that I hear reproach no more." Also found in Tobit 7 Then Tobias said to Raphael, "Brother Azarias, speak of those things which you talked about on the journey, and let the matter be settled." [9] So he communicated the proposal to Raguel. And Raguel said to Tobias, "Eat, drink, and be merry; [10] for it is your right to take my child. But let me explain the true situation to you. [11] I have given my daughter to seven husbands, and when each came to her he died in the night. But for the present be merry." And Tobias said, "I will eat nothing here until you make a binding agreement with me." [12] So Raguel said, "Take her right now, in accordance with the law. You are her relative, and she is yours. The merciful God will guide you both for the best." [13] Then he called his daughter Sarah, and taking her by the hand he gave her to Tobias to be his wife, saying, "Here she is; take her according to the law of Moses, and take her with you to your father." And he blessed them. Referenced in Matt. 22:25 [23] The same day Sad'ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, [24] saying, "Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.' [25] Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. [26] So too the second and third, down to the seventh. [27] After them all, the woman died. [28] In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her." [29] Referenced in Mark 12:20 [18] And Sad'ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, [19] "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the wife, and raise up children for his brother. [20] There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no children; [21] and the second took her, and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; [22] and the seven left no children. Last of all the woman also died. [23] In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife." Referenced in Luke 20:29 [27] There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there is no resurrection, [28] and they asked him a question, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the wife and raise up children for his brother. [29] Now there were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and died without children; [30] and the second [31] and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. [32] Afterward the woman also died. [33] In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife." The story of the death of Seven Brothers and the taking of the wife referenced by the Sadducees is ONLY in Tobit.
Speculation! Wow come on, its the same story, I may not agree with every thing the RC says but this one I do. Unless you can point to another story with sevan brothers in it from Jewish tradition of the time that fits?
I don't believe that you are sincere in this. Let it sit for a while and see if it's not a nagging truth that won't let you go on ignoring the facts concerning the Protestant removal of OT Bible texts that Jesus used. Once you know it, the truth is hard to deny forever.
Then why not at the very least say one name, or say "the name of the book", or "it was said in the scriptures". I think you're reading what you want it to say. could it have been they were just giving him a hypothetical situation? They had no problem remembering Moses, so why not at least one of the names in the story? They were Jews who knew scripture, and they couldn't remember the book, or even one name?
I'm being sincere as I know how to be, I just can't believe they remember Moses, but can't seem to remember the names of the characters or the book of the seven. These were sadducees, they should have known scripture back and forth, and this little allusion is all they can remember? Could it have been a hypothetical situation?
Yep those poor old sadducees, couldn't even remember one name......wow....I guess they weren't so smart after all. They couldn't even remember who wrote it.....poor souls.....no wonder Jesus won in the end.....
They were testing Jesus' knowledge of the Scriptures--why would they give him the details? Really--think on it; pray on it.
You're reaching... Here...how about this one... Eph.6 [10] Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. [11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. [13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, [15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; [16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. [17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Wisdom of Solomon 5: [15] But the righteous live for ever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them. [16] Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord, because with his right hand he will cover them, and with his arm he will shield them. [17] The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor, and will arm all creation to repel his enemies; [18] he will put on righteousness as a breastplate, and wear impartial justice as a helmet; [19] he will take holiness as an invincible shield, [20] and sharpen stern wrath for a sword, and creation will join with him to fight against the madmen.
It is not that, remember they were writing this for people who already knew scripture. There would have been no reason to add names to every referance made if it was a story known to most. But in the end it is not just whats written in those passages. You also need to look at the oral tradition of the Church and at the learned Fathers of the Church as well. If just tradition said that this was so, I would be skeptical or if just the Church fathers. But the fact that the Church Fathers and tradition also support that claim I tend to believe them over presant day critics. If you look at the Bible through a vacume you are going to make mistakes and start believing things that are just not the truth. The whole goal of the Orthodox Church is to bring the message of Christ in full from the beginning to now with as little change as possible. It is a big reason why I chose this Church, becuase they were the closest I could find to the origional Church set up by the Apostles. It is like in Acts 9:8 when Saul went blind after speaking with Christ. Sauls blindness illustrated Christs's teachings on Spiritual blindness (Jn 9:39). As long as Saul saw things from his own perspective, he was spiritually blind. Only by having his worldy vision taken away does Saul become capable of truly seeing Christs Glory and truth. This also caused saul to submit to the Church and get babtised by the first Bishop of Damascus Ananias.
OK, these passages do do deal with armor, although each one except "the breastplate of rightousness", seem to differ. So, that hung me up, then I read Isaiah 59:17, and it was written there. and since Isaiah was written roughly 5 centuries before "the wisdom", I'll stand with Isaiah, as being the originator of the "breastplate of rightuosness".
Now heres the problem, you are beholden to the churches "official" position, I'm not. Even within my church I disagree with my pastor, but that doesn't mean he's right, or I'm right, it simply means that we agree to disagree. As long as its not a salvation doctrine issue, its ok.
Its not about being beholden, its about combining the ideas of all three parts of the faith, scripture, Tradition, and the knowladge given us by the Church Fathers of the past. Not to mention I am humble enouph to allow that the ancient Church Fathers may have known a little more about the faith then myself. Having personal beliefs about faith is fine but everyone else does as well. It is the goal of the Church to insured that the proper beliefs are expressed so that false beliefs do not hamper the deification and eventual passage of the soul. Basically the insure that as many people reach salvation as possible we must avoid false teachings and heretical beliefs from corrupting the faithful. It is like in Acts 9:8 when Saul went blind after speaking with Christ. Sauls blindness illustrated Christs's teachings on Spiritual blindness (Jn 9:39). As long as Saul saw things from his own perspective, he was spiritually blind. Only by having his worldy vision taken away does Saul become capable of truly seeing Christs Glory and truth. This also caused saul to submit to the Church and get babtised by the first Bishop of Damascus Ananias.
Your avoiding what I said. I didn't say the apocryphal books were not there in the Vulgate. I said they were. I also said, Jerome never considered the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Jerome separated the books from the Scripture. It wouln't be until Trent that they would be considered Scripture on the basis that they were in the Vulgate. You don't have a first century Septuigent to indicate that the Aprocrypha was in there. And even if it was in there, just like with Jerome who translated the Apocrypha but did not consider it Scripture, the same could have been true there also. And it wasn't good enough for Jesus as Jesus never quoted any Aprocryphal books. Quantrill
