What's with this thing called THE APOCRYPHA?

epostle said:

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:
​

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.​

(Introduction 5, 6)

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Newman states, in summary:
​

If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.​

(Ibid., ch. 7, section 6: conclusion)

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture, or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?​

Click to expand...

Hi epostle,
I think I know you from another forum...
but anyway;
I know both catholic and protestant doctrine, and I must say, each has its problems.

This saddens me, to say the least. It seems to me that if there is one God and one Holy Spirit, we should be able to read the bible and all come to the same understanding.

I don't care much for evolution of biblical concepts.
When man puts his hand to the matter, he seems to be perfectly capable of messing things up.

Why do we have a church that is different from the early church and why do the concepts keep changing?

Original sin changed with Augustine. Why? No one understood it before?
How could we know for sure he was right and not the others?

Mary has gained more and more importance until many cannot even accept what she has come to represent.

Purgatory might or might not be true...I don't think so, and some priests don't think so. But why make it be so important? Was Jesus' sacrifice not sufficient?
Does HE not cover for our weaknesses?

I heard or read a catholic apologist...a big one..can't remember who, sorry, just the other day proclaim that if a person does not accept EVERY single catholic doctrine, he will be lost. An astonishing statement. Which, if I understand both the CCC and my friendly priests, is not even true.

Nondenom40 said:

Lets see that decree of 382. Something other than wikipedia.

Wrong. Jerome specifically rejected your apocrypha. I've posted his works verbatim several times. If you don't like it, too bad. Jerome was a hebrew scholar, prove he needed 'help' from the jews. And Jerome rejected the apocrypha because it wasn't in the palestinian canon.

Your bible lessons leave a lot out. No wonder catholicism is so confused. Regardless of what the septuagint had, the palestinian canon did not have your apocrypha.
Your lack of facts is ugly indeed.
Who cares? Your apocrypha was rejected by palestinian jews DURING Jesus' lifetime, and were not considered inspired.
No one considered your false books to be inspired. Jerome matter of factly rejected them and placed them outside of the canon. Read it and weep.

Jerome rejected your apocrypha. Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the apocrypha. Your prelates at Trent had no training in biblical languages. There wasn't a scholar among them that decided the canon. Your church elevated for the first time a bunch of books no one ever considered inspired. Theres your bible lesson, you history lesson and your own catholic lesson. Why i have to school you on this is beyond me. But i'm happy to do it.

Click to expand...

The Jewish Canon of the 1st century was an OPEN Canon. It wasn't closed until AFTER the 2nd Jewish Revolt during the SECOND Century.

I have produced quote after quote from Jerome stating that the JEWISH scholars who helped him translate the OT into Latin were the ones who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome. I even presented quotes from Jerome referring to some of the Books as "Sacred Scripture".
YOUR rejection of these quotes doesn't "nullify" them - it simply shows your desperation.

Finally - the 1st century Jews didn't "reject" the Deuterocanonical Books. The fact that the NT is littered with some 200 references to them, showing that the NT writers were well-versed in the Jewish Scriptures. YOUR edited canon only goes back to the SECOND century, when the false prophet, Rabbi Akiva deleted them from the Canon.

Luther sided with Akiva to further divorce himself from the Catholic Church. And like lemmings running off a cliff - the rest of your Protestant Fathers followed . . .

GodsGrace said:

Hi epostle,
I think I know you from another forum...
but anyway;
I know both catholic and protestant doctrine, and I must say, each has its problems.

This saddens me, to say the least. It seems to me that if there is one God and one Holy Spirit, we should be able to read the bible and all come to the same understanding.

I don't care much for evolution of biblical concepts.
When man puts his hand to the matter, he seems to be perfectly capable of messing things up.

Why do we have a church that is different from the early church and why do the concepts keep changing?

Original sin changed with Augustine. Why? No one understood it before?
How could we know for sure he was right and not the others?

Mary has gained more and more importance until many cannot even accept what she has come to represent.

Purgatory might or might not be true...I don't think so, and some priests don't think so. But why make it be so important? Was Jesus' sacrifice not sufficient?
Does HE not cover for our weaknesses?

I heard or read a catholic apologist...a big one..can't remember who, sorry, just the other day proclaim that if a person does not accept EVERY single catholic doctrine, he will be lost. An astonishing statement. Which, if I understand both the CCC and my friendly priests, is not even true.

Click to expand...

Development does not mean change. Essential truths remain the same in Catholicism. Augustine did not "change" anything, he developed an existing doctrine. Marian doctrines are grossly misunderstood. "if a person does not accept EVERY single catholic doctrine, he will be lost" is a heresy called Pelagianism, being un-lost by your own efforts. It is not taught by the Church. Catholics have the right to disagree with the Church, within limits, the same as any church, but we don't have the right to rebel. Weber's Home fell for this heresy and in his disgust of it, he left the Church. So he spends his lifetime condemning the Church over a matter that was never taught.

epostle said:

Development does not mean change. Essential truths remain the same in Catholicism. Augustine did not "change" anything, he developed an existing doctrine. Marian doctrines are grossly misunderstood. "if a person does not accept EVERY single catholic doctrine, he will be lost" is a heresy called Pelagianism, being un-lost by your own efforts. It is not taught by the Church. Catholics have the right to disagree with the Church, within limits, the same as any church, but we don't have the right to rebel. Weber's Home fell for this heresy and in his disgust of it, he left the Church. So he spends his lifetime condemning the Church over a matter that was never taught.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the above.
First of all, development does mean change.
As ideas develop, they change.
Even in the physical world this is true:
as houses develope in the building of them...they change.

Augustine certainly did change the understanding of Original Sin.
Babies did not HAVE TO be baptized before...
AFTER Augustine, every baby had to be baptized or go to hell, according to the changes he made to the doctrine of original sin.

I don't grossly misunderstand Marian doctrine---I happen to understand it really well. I just can't agree with all of it.

You should check with you local priest....
Catholics are NOT allowed to disagree with doctrine set forth by the magesterium.

Catholics are beginning to have as many varied beliefs as Protestants -- unfortunately, in my opinion.

BreadOfLife said:

The Jewish Canon of the 1st century was an OPEN Canon. It wasn't closed until AFTER the 2nd Jewish Revolt during the SECOND Century.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Jesus who expected the scribes and pharisees to know what was scripture and what wasn't. How many times did He say; haven't you read the scriptures? He wasn't talking about maccabbees!

I have produced quote after quote from Jerome stating that the JEWISH scholars who helped him translate the OT into Latin were the ones who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome.

Click to expand...

I must have missed that post. All i've seen is your opinion. Care to cite that again where jewish scholars 'helped' Jerome (a hebrew scholar and a latin scholar) to translate the hebrew into latin? And i've cited Jerome's Prefaces numerous times here where he names YOUR apocrypha and says they are NOT in the canon.

I even presented quotes from Jerome referring to some of the Books as "Sacred Scripture".
YOUR rejection of these quotes doesn't "nullify" them - it simply shows your desperation.

Click to expand...

You mean your flawed interpretation of Jerome? I've explained that one passage. It helps to read the entire letter and not snippets rome feeds you.

Finally - the 1st century Jews didn't "reject" the Deuterocanonical Books. The fact that the NT is littered with some 200 references to them, showing that the NT writers were well-versed in the Jewish Scriptures. YOUR edited canon only goes back to the SECOND century, when the false prophet, Rabbi Akiva deleted them from the Canon.

Click to expand...

Why wasn't your apocrypha in the palestinian canon? Because they were rejected, thats why.

Luther sided with Akiva to further divorce himself from the Catholic Church. And like lemmings running off a cliff - the rest of your Protestant Fathers followed . . .

Click to expand...

Luthers bible contained the apocrypha. What are you talking about? Plus the roman catholic church of his day ripped it off, slapped their name on it and published it under the catholic name. If Luther had removed the apocrypha would your church have ripped it off? A little history goes a long way.

Btw, i'm still waiting for that decree of Rome 382 you keep bringing up. When are we gonna see that?

Nondenom40 said:

Tell that to Jesus who expected the scribes and pharisees to know what was scripture and what wasn't. How many times did He say; haven't you read the scriptures? He wasn't talking about maccabbees!

I must have missed that post. All i've seen is your opinion. Care to cite that again where jewish scholars 'helped' Jerome (a hebrew scholar and a latin scholar) to translate the hebrew into latin? And i've cited Jerome's Prefaces numerous times here where he names YOUR apocrypha and says they are NOT in the canon.
You mean your flawed interpretation of Jerome? I've explained that one passage. It helps to read the entire letter and not snippets rome feeds you.
Why wasn't your apocrypha in the palestinian canon? Because they were rejected, thats why.
Luthers bible contained the apocrypha. What are you talking about? Plus the roman catholic church of his day ripped it off, slapped their name on it and published it under the catholic name. If Luther had removed the apocrypha would your church have ripped it off? A little history goes a long way.

Btw, i'm still waiting for that decree of Rome 382 you keep bringing up. When are we gonna see that?

Click to expand...

From post #41:

Jerome wrote:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Regarding the Book of Sirach, he writes:
“for does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not yourself above your power?'” (Letter to Eustochium)

As for your moronic statement that Jesus wasn't talking about Maccabees - where does He say this??
Chapter and Verse, please.

As for references to the Books of Maccabees . . .
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.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

As to your equally-asinine claim that the Catholic Church "ripped off" the Deuterocanonical Books - this simply shows your abject ignorance, The Church simply recognized what the Jews from the 1st century did - that they were inspired Scripture. Remember - it is the edited Canon of the false prophet Rabbi Akiva that YOU and the rest of Protestantism chose to follow.

The Catholic Church didn't "rip off" anything.
YOU cheated yourselves . . .

BreadOfLife said:

From post #41:

Jerome wrote:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Regarding the Book of Sirach, he writes:
“for does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not yourself above your power?'” (Letter to Eustochium)

As for your moronic statement that Jesus wasn't talking about Maccabees - where does He say this??
Chapter and Verse, please.

As for references to the Books of Maccabees . . .
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.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

As to your equally-asinine claim that the Catholic Church "ripped off" the Deuterocanonical Books - this simply shows your abject ignorance, The Church simply recognized what the Jews from the 1st century did - that they were inspired Scripture. Remember - it is the edited Canon of the false prophet Rabbi Akiva that YOU and the rest of Protestantism chose to follow.

The Catholic Church didn't "rip off" anything.
YOU cheated yourselves . . .

Click to expand...

Must be difficult living in your world.
1. I never said your church ripped off the deuts. I said they ripped off Luthers bible, which is true.
2. I've asked for you to support your comments and i am still waiting for these gems;

Provide the decrees of Rome 382
Provide support for your comment that Jerome had other jewish scholars help him translate the o.t into latin.

When are we gonna see those?

Nondenom40 said:

Must be difficult living in your world.
1. I never said your church ripped off the deuts. I said they ripped off Luthers bible, which is true.
2. I've asked for you to support your comments and i am still waiting for these gems;

Provide the decrees of Rome 382
Provide support for your comment that Jerome had other jewish scholars help him translate the o.t into latin.

When are we gonna see those?

Click to expand...

Jerome didn't know Greek very well and had problems translating the bible from Greek. Can't remember much about how it came about that it was HE that did the translating so I'm reading along every now and then. I have to read up on this eventually, am forgetting a lot.

What do you mean that the CC ripped off Luther's bible?

GodsGrace said:

Jerome didn't know Greek very well and had problems translating the bible from Greek.

Click to expand...

Do you have some documentation for that? In letter 51 it was Epiphanius that asked Jerome to translate that letter written in greek to latin. If he was that incompetent why would Epiphanius do that?

From letter 51

Originally written in Greek, the letter was (by the writer’s request) rendered into Latin by Jerome. Its date is 394 A.D

Click to expand...

What do you mean that the CC ripped off Luther's bible?

Click to expand...

Luther mentions it in his Open Letter on Translating. The catholic church took his bible, removed the glosses and notes and passed it off as their own.

Nondenom40 said:

Must be difficult living in your world.
1. I never said your church ripped off the deuts. I said they ripped off Luthers bible, which is true.
2. I've asked for you to support your comments and i am still waiting for these gems;

Provide the decrees of Rome 382
Provide support for your comment that Jerome had other jewish scholars help him translate the o.t into latin.

When are we gonna see those?

Click to expand...

Luther’s Bible wasn’t compiled until the 16th century.

The Catholic Bible had already been around for some 1200 years. That existing Catholic Canon of Scripture was merely CLOSED at Trent, Einstein.

The fact is that NOTall Jews adhere the same Canon of Scripture. As a matter of fact – the Canon of the Ethiopian Jews isIDENTICAL to the Catholic OT Canon (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Additionally – I HAVE given you quotes from Jerome stating that it was NOT his opinion that the Deuterocanonical Books were “uninspired” – but that of the JEWS.

As for the decrees of the Council of Rome– they have been mostly lost. In fact, the only surviving decree is the Damasene List of Books. Here is the list from the Council of Carthage, just 38 years later in 419 AD:

The Canon of the Old & New Testament

Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.”

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomo

• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• zechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.
• The Gospels, iv. books.
• The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
• The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
• The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
• The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
• The Revelation of John, j. book.

“Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

Finally YOU have YETto address the references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament. I only gave you TWO examples – and you couldn’t even address those . . .

Nondenom40 said:

Do you have some documentation for that? In letter 51 it was Epiphanius that asked Jerome to translate that letter written in greek to latin. If he was that incompetent why would Epiphanius do that?

From letter 51



Luther mentions it in his Open Letter on Translating. The catholic church took his bible, removed the glosses and notes and passed it off as their own.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with letter 51.
As to documentation from Jerome...
Let me see if I could find a link.
I learned this from the Catholic church actually.
In fact, in 2008 they revised all their bibles and had them translated from the Greek instead of from the Latin.

I didn't notice any big differences but there were some.
Please don't ask what!

GodsGrace said:

I'm not familiar with letter 51.
As to documentation from Jerome...
Let me see if I could find a link.
I learned this from the Catholic church actually.
In fact, in 2008 they revised all their bibles and had them translated from the Greek instead of from the Latin.

I didn't notice any big differences but there were some.
Please don't ask what!

Click to expand...

Actually, some of what I found stated he was well-versed in Greek and Hebrew...
I did find this:

Translation of the Bible (382–405)[edit]

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalemto strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the mainstream Rabbinical Judaismhad rejected the Septuagint as invalid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[23] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has sometimes cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews") translation of the Old Testament.[24] However, detailed studies have shown that to a considerable degree Jerome was a competent Hebraist.[25]

source: Jerome - Wikipedia

I wonder if @BreadOfLife has any information on this?

Nondenom40 said:

Do you have some documentation for that? In letter 51 it was Epiphanius that asked Jerome to translate that letter written in greek to latin. If he was that incompetent why would Epiphanius do that?

From letter 51



Luther mentions it in his Open Letter on Translating. The catholic church took his bible, removed the glosses and notes and passed it off as their own.

Click to expand...

P.S.
This might also shed some light:

How Well Did Jerome Know Hebrew?

BreadOfLife said:

Luther’s Bible wasn’t compiled until the 16th century.

The Catholic Bible had already been around for some 1200 years. That existing Catholic Canon of Scripture was merely CLOSED at Trent, Einstein.

Click to expand...

And? Your church ripped off Luther's bible after it was completed in 1534. And Trent was the first dogmatic expression of the canon.

The fact is that NOTall Jews adhere the same Canon of Scripture. As a matter of fact – the Canon of the Ethiopian Jews isIDENTICAL to the Catholic OT Canon (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Click to expand...

Who cares? No one is talking about the ethiopian jews are they? Divert much?

Additionally – I HAVE given you quotes from Jerome stating that it was NOT his opinion that the Deuterocanonical Books were “uninspired” – but that of the JEWS.

Click to expand...

No you haven't. Lets see it. Jerome specifically consigned your apocrypha outside of the canon.

Jerome; Prefaces to the Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament; Books of Samuel and Kings

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Click to expand...

Read it and weep.

As for the decrees of the Council of Rome– they have been mostly lost.

Click to expand...

Duh, i've only been saying this since the start. Hefele, one of your own catholic bishops says in his work; A History of the Councils of the Church, vol 2 pp378 ALL of the acts have been lost. Not most. You keep bringing up Rome 382 like you have something. Which is why i had to keep asking you to show it to us. It doesn't exist! Now you know.

In fact, the only surviving decree is the Damasene List of Books. Here is the list from the Council of Carthage, just 38 years later in 419 AD:

The Canon of the Old & New Testament

Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.”

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomo

• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• zechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.
• The Gospels, iv. books.
• The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
• The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
• The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
• The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
• The Revelation of John, j. book.

“Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

Click to expand...

This list is an abbreviated list from Hippo which was read and accepted at Carthage 397. Although Hefele says all the canons for both councils were lost, a group that did not attend Carthage 397 sent a letter and its own list of the canons of Hippo. Although there was doubt about it, it was read and approved anyway. This list was then read at the council of 419.

Finally YOU have YETto address the references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament. I only gave you TWO examples – and you couldn’t even address those . . .

Click to expand...

I've seen them before. Its cherry picking at its best. Much the same way you claim mary is the new ark. The ark went somewhere for 3 months. Mary went somewhere for 3 months. Bam, mary is the new ark. Gimmie a break.

GodsGrace said:

I'm not familiar with letter 51.
As to documentation from Jerome...
Let me see if I could find a link.
I learned this from the Catholic church actually.
In fact, in 2008 they revised all their bibles and had them translated from the Greek instead of from the Latin.

I didn't notice any big differences but there were some.
Please don't ask what!

Click to expand...

Not the Douay-Rheims. The catholic church inserted the word penace 50 times! Thats not in the original greek.

Nondenom40 said:

Not the Douay-Rheims. The catholic church inserted the word penace 50 times! Thats not in the original greek.

Click to expand...

Right. This is why the church here has told it's members that are serious about learning to please buy a new bible. I use an English language bible so this does not apply to me.

Thanks for the reply.

Nondenom40 said:

And? Your church ripped off Luther's bible after it was completed in 1534. And Trent was the first dogmatic expression of the canon.

Who cares? No one is talking about the ethiopian jews are they? Divert much?

No you haven't. Lets see it. Jerome specifically consigned your apocrypha outside of the canon.
Read it and weep.


Duh, i've only been saying this since the start. Hefele, one of your own catholic bishops says in his work; A History of the Councils of the Church, vol 2 pp378 ALL of the acts have been lost. Not most. You keep bringing up Rome 382 like you have something. Which is why i had to keep asking you to show it to us. It doesn't exist! Now you know.

This list is an abbreviated list from Hippo which was read and accepted at Carthage 397. Although Hefele says all the canons for both councils were lost, a group that did not attend Carthage 397 sent a letter and its own list of the canons of Hippo. Although there was doubt about it, it was read and approved anyway. This list was then read at the council of 419.


I've seen them before. Its cherry picking at its best. Much the same way you claim mary is the new ark. The ark went somewhere for 3 months. Mary went somewhere for 3 months. Bam, mary is the new ark. Gimmie a break.

Click to expand...

Hey ND,
I'm protestant -- just so you know.
However, there are some ideas in catholicism that are very beautiful.
One of them is why Mary is the New Ark...which you might already know.

The Ark carried the Law...the 10 commandments written in stone.
Mary carried Jesus...the New Covenant, the 10 commandments written on the heart. The Mosaic Covenant was Law....Jesus is Grace.

It's just an idea....it's not a dogma or anything like that.
It's like how we say that Jesus is the Ark because He saved us from death (the flood).

Nondenom40 said:

And? Your church ripped off Luther's bible after it was completed in 1534. And Trent was the first dogmatic expression of the canon.

Who cares? No one is talking about the ethiopian jews are they? Divert much?

No you haven't. Lets see it. Jerome specifically consigned your apocrypha outside of the canon.
Read it and weep.


Duh, i've only been saying this since the start. Hefele, one of your own catholic bishops says in his work; A History of the Councils of the Church, vol 2 pp378 ALL of the acts have been lost. Not most. You keep bringing up Rome 382 like you have something. Which is why i had to keep asking you to show it to us. It doesn't exist! Now you know.

This list is an abbreviated list from Hippo which was read and accepted at Carthage 397. Although Hefele says all the canons for both councils were lost, a group that did not attend Carthage 397 sent a letter and its own list of the canons of Hippo. Although there was doubt about it, it was read and approved anyway. This list was then read at the council of 419.


I've seen them before. Its cherry picking at its best. Much the same way you claim mary is the new ark. The ark went somewhere for 3 months. Mary went somewhere for 3 months. Bam, mary is the new ark. Gimmie a break.

Click to expand...

As usual – your complete lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine and dogma is at the core of your confusion.

The Canon of Scripture wasn’t “decided” upon at Trent. As I have shown – it had already been decided upon and reiterated SEVERAL times over the 1200 years prior to Trent. It was simply CLOSED at Trent and made a matter of Dogma. It has already been a doctrinal issue for 1200 years.

The same can be said of the Trinity, which didn’t become a matter of Dogma until the FOURTH century. Yet, it is THE central tenet of the Christian faith.

To say that the Church “ripped off” Luther’s Bible is an incredibly STUPID that NO credible historian would agree with. Even if you reject the decisions at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) – you cannot run from the fact that the Canon was expressed in the letter of Innocent I to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse in 405 AD:

“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows.These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings 2 together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, 3 and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, 4 two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. 5 Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John's Apocalypse.

But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.”

This is over 1100 years BEFORE Luther.

You LOSE this argument because you won’t do your homework - and you refuse to accept ANY evidence that proves you wrong and exposes your LIES . . .

Respected Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelley wrote:
"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew . . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.

Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas . . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of onAlexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The following are ALL quotes from the Early (Catholic) Church regarding the Deuterocanonical Books– and ALL of them at least 1200 years BEFORE Trent. . .

The Didache
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Pseudo-Barnabas
"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isa. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!" (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Irenaeus
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]" (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

continued . . .

Cyprian
"In Genesis [it says], 'And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . "' [Gen 22:1-2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], 'Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .' [Wis. 3:4].

Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], 'Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness'" [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21-23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Augustine
"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called 'of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (On Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [ca. A.D. 395]).

Council of Carthage
"[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, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Apostolic Constitutions
"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]).

Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, 'This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]).

African Code
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . . Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, of these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church" (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).