TherJ


Did I say he (Luther) published a bible without those books?

No, and I never said you ' said ' it, I merely pointed out that he never published one. Please work on your comprehension

Luther said ALOT of things. Of course, his removing the added apocrypha has nothing to with his 'ideas' concerning James and Revelation. Bottom line is he left them in.

Church babies huh? lol I am sorry, I am sitting here smiling at your attempts, stifling a chuckle here and there.

Well, since you insist on making such outlandish claims -:

The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400
My Jesuit Anti Semite, you need to do better.
Now, I already had this info, I just kept it to myself, awaiting your pitiful, silly attempt to place the so called apocrypha as 'early'

You have been 'Trumped' and by older church babies :
"Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired." [Apocrypha].
Melito (AD 170 ) said, "I accordingly went to the East, and, coming to the very place where these things were preached and transacted, I have accurately learned the books of the Old Testament. Their names are as follows: five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave, Judges, Ruth. Four books of Kings [two of Samuel and two of Kings], two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon (which is also Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job. Of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; and of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras" [including also Nehemiah, and perhaps Esther]." [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 294]. Though Melito was aware of the apocrypha books, he did not list them as a part of the Old Testament canon

I mean really, the very idea.

Your council was more then 150 years LATE...tut tut......

'None of the 'early Christians' used the Apocrypha.
Paul would rather quote pagan Poetry then quote the apocrypha.'
YOU said this statement is FALSE

I could not help but be amazed at how poorly they train Jesuit cogitators these days
Where is Karl Keating of 'Katholik Answers' these days, he was MUCH more entertaining

Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring

Either your a liar or simply misinformed. Paul QUOTES a pagan poet.
There are no QUOTES of the Apocrypha...And please do not bring up an 'allusion'...been there done that. No NT writer says ' Thus saith Tobit'
Anyway, thank you for your opinion.

As anyone knows, Jesus Himself set the three divisions of the OT canon
The Law
The PROPHETS
The Psalms

To this factual statement, you say:

So then the wisdom books and the historical books in even your OT are scripture?

What about Proverbs? What about Job? What about I and II Kings? etc, etc, etc?

These aren't scripture?
You are so wrapped up in what the Pope says, you can not understand this?
According to Jesus Christ 'ex'cathreda' statement, there are THREE divisions... The Jews of Jesus time, and Jesus Himself ( proven a *FACT *by His own divine statement on the matter) used a canon that had had three divisions in it.

The three divisions that Jesus knew about, proven by His statement on the matter are:


Law
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy


Prophets
Joshua
Judges

1-2 Samuel (1-2 Kings)
1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Book of the Twelve (the so called 'minor prophets'

Psalms( or Writings)

Psalms
Proverbs

Job
Song of Songs

Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1-2 Chronicle

The 24 Books of the Hebrew OT are equivalent to the 39 Books common to all Christian Old Testaments, for Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah were each divided into two parts in the Christian canons, and the one Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets was split into twelve books, one for each prophet.


Now, those are the THREE( not four) divisions of Scripture that Jesus spoke of. That is how the Jews ( the Bible is the Oracles of God, given to the Jew).
You see, Jesus Christ, the Judean Jew did NOT include the 'Wisdom' books as a division. Jesus CXhrist was not a 'roman catholic' who would waste His time with such pagan claptrap. You simply made an error concerning these three divisions, and they are( and were) divided.
.
You simply are totally ignorant of what and how those three division were.
Again, it is Jesus Christ HIMSELF who says that the OT canon that HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH had THREE divisions

If you want, argue with Him. I'm sure you will.

But thank you for your opinion.

Also let us note that the Jew (Jesus Christ) states the ORDER of the OT canon that He used.
That canon ran from Genesis to Second Chronicles, according to Jesus Christ.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar

If you pick up a Hebrew OT today, you will find that this matches exactly the order of books that Jesus Christ gives here.

The FIRST 'righteous blood' shed is in Genesis
The LAST 'righteous blood' shed is in 2 Chronicles...in the Bible that Jesus Christ USED

The OT that Jesus used ran EXACTLY as a Jewish OT does today...Genesis to Second Chronicles.

To this you said:
I don't see anything about a canon there. . Are you saying that anything beyond 2nd Chronicles is not scripture?

Your claims seem to be getting rather confused.

Are we talking about the Hebrew canon which results from the attempt to throw out the Septuagint because Christians were so successfully using it to make converts from among the Jews (including wht you call apocrypha)? or the Christian canon?

That's what that group of rabbis did in Jamnia - rejected the Greek septuagint that Jesus and his followers used, and that Christains of the first century used.

They had no authority to do so and the christian Church paid them no heed - much the same as the Ethiopian Jews who continued to use the Septuagint even after the Jews fought over its exclusioin for 500 years after this attempt was made by these rabbis.

They had no authority.
Do people who have a brain take you seriously?
The Jews had no authority?
It was to the JEWS that the oracles of God were given my anti Semitic friend.
That is another Ex Cathreda statement from the Apostle Paul
Only a silly, vain, Papist would make such a silly claim and call Paul a liar, and Jesus Christ a liar
Well Hitler would make such a claim as well..... Oh that's right, he was a catholic, as was Himmler, Gobels and the rest of the Nazi High command.


You see, the fact of the matter is that the canon that Jesus used ran from Genesis to Second Chronicles
The same order of Books is available for you to see in ANY Book store that sells a Hebrew Bible.
You can argue about it all day long, but it was Jesus Christ who said that the first blood shed in the OT ran from Genesis, then all the way thru the rest of the Bible to the last book of the Hebrew canon, Second Chronicles. What I have stated is an established *FACT", set forth by Historians and by Jesus Himself, so what you have to say amounts to as much as a pile of dung in an open field
Stinks as much too.

And of course what Roman Catholic history would be complete without the mention of Wycliff and how his corpse was dug out of the ground, tried and burned for daring to print the Bible in English.

' The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth. This is the most final of all posthumous attacks on John Wycliffe, but previous attempts had been made before the Council of Constance. The Anti-Wycliffite Statute of 1401 extended persecution to Wycliffe's remaining followers. The "Constitutions of Oxford" of 1408 aimed to reclaim authority in all ecclesiastical matters, specifically naming John Wycliffe in a ban on certain writings, and noting that translation of Scripture into English is a crime punishable by charges of heres'

The 'holy roman church' at its finest'
To this you said:
I notice that you don't cite your sources.

Wikipedia, huh?

Anyone can write a wikipedia article. Probably one of the most unreliable sources for information, especially about controversial issues.
were not translating scripture into the venacular.

The issue was never about translation into the venacular. Despite the popular myth to the contrary, Wycliffs crimes
Why persist in promoting such nonsesnse?
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/rel-christ05.htm

I could quote and find several sources proving that Wycliffs body was DUG UP , TRIED and BURNED, but why bother?
This is just typical Jesuit subterfuge.
You forget to mention ( as all Katholiks do) that in "In 1401 England's parliament instituted death by fire for heresy. In 1407 English language Bibles were banned"

' The late John Wycliffe was tried a second time and this time condemned. The Council of Constance ordered his body disinterred and burned. The deed was carried out in 1428 -- forty-four years after Wycliffe's death.'

I could go on, but why bother.

Now , concerning the LXX, could you please post ONE LXX manuscript from BEFORE AD 350.
We have already 'been down the road' concerning the counterfeit and obvious hoax letter intended to deceive, of pseudo-Aristeas.

Without a manuscript, you have no case
But thank you for your opinion

Now to review
You are in error concerning the Three divisions of the OT

You simply do not care about what Jesus Christ has said on the matter. Your 'authority' is a group of wine headed bachelors in Rome.

You are in error concerning the fact that it was the Jews that were given the Oracles of God.

Your authority is NOT Paul who made that statement, but some black robed 'priests' who think that they can turn a cookie into the body of Jesus Christ.

You are in error concerning the LAYOUT of the OT( Genesis to Second Chronicles) even though the order is given by Jesus Christ, and can be found in a Hebrew OT TODAY.

You are in error concerning Wycliffs 'trial' and the REASON you bloody KILLERS dug up a CORPSE and put it on trial.
Sick, sick, sick.

You are in error on the Apocrypha as Melito did NOT include it in his canon 160 YEARS before your very late source.
You are in error concerning the LXX.
The EARLIEST 'LXX' is 350 AD, and is represented by Siniaticus and Vaticanus( which by the way, some now think could be a late 15th century forgery)

Of course Rome has some 'issues' with non catholics taking a look at this poor manuscript which contains corrections on nearly every page.

Anyway, I hope you all fare well in the future here at the Tree.
And again, thank you for your opinion