Did The Holy Bible exist prior to the 4th Century?

[knuckle]

Cepha-------------

which brings me back to the question-----------what constitutes the church? If Peter was indeed the first pope then at one time weren't his epistles "the" cannon?

you are not listening to your own words---you state over and over that the church,the catholic church started 33ad with Peter as head of it.Yes in the 300 plus years after that point many false gospels were written but at the start the church knew what was inspired cause they all lived it,they all knew one another---Paul knew Luke Peter knew Paul John knew Peter and Matthew and James they knew what was true so this idea that a council needed to put it's approval on the canon is a bogus claim

The word canon means by which to measure (Gal 6:16 Phil 3:16) it denotes a straight measure that is unchanging now if Polycarp had only I think 8 or 10 but they are still the ones we have today the he had a canon by 185 Hippolytus had gathered all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John they are still just as true today so he,Hippolytus had a canon.


are you understanding what I am saying?

much love--------knuckle

[Cepha]

Jul 15, 2008 5:55:55 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Cepha-------------

which brings me back to the question-----------what constitutes the church? If Peter was indeed the first pope then at one time weren't his epistles "the" cannon?

What constitutes The Church? The birth of The Church was in The Book of Acts when in The Upper Room, The Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ) was given to The Apostles and to those there with them. The Church was established with a Teaching Authority who were obviously granted the guidance of The Holy Spirit in that capacity. This is consistently proven over and over especially by Paul who warns against any deviation from what he and The Apostles teach.

Any scriptural material before the canonization of The Holy Bible was not considered canonical. Why? Because there had been no consensus on what was to be considered inspired by God. This was impossible to do before Constantine lifted the persecutions on The Church because The Church couldn't meet to have a thorough & formal order.

Everything had to be gathered and compared to other works to either confirm or discredit what was to be considered canonical.

you are not listening to your own words---you state over and over that the church,the catholic church started 33ad with Peter as head of it.

That's a given. Jesus said that upon Cepha He would build His Church.

Yes in the 300 plus years after that point many false gospels were written but at the start the church knew what was inspired cause they all lived it,they all knew one another---Paul knew Luke Peter knew Paul John knew Peter and Matthew and James they knew what was true so this idea that a council needed to put it's approval on the canon is a bogus claim

Well, the very same names you use disprove you. Paul especially preached against the false gospels that were going around didn't he?

When The Apostles met, those were councils (official meetings) to decide and discuss Church issues. At these councils, Peter was overwhelmingly the first to speak and the last to speak almost always having the final say.

When Jesus met with His Apostles to commission them, that was a council. He, being the Head of The Church on earth, layed out the rules and gave out assignments. This is exactly what happens today at Church councils.

God is about order. There never was any "go by how one feels" teaching. We were always taught to not only scrutinize teachings, but to judge the teachers. Otherwise, all sorts of false prophets could introduce new teachings into Christianity which causes division and some folks would automatically believe them because they carried a bible and had the right clothes on and said the seemingly right words.

The word canon means by which to measure (Gal 6:16 Phil 3:16) it denotes a straight measure that is unchanging now if Polycarp had only I think 8 or 10 but they are still the ones we have today the he had a canon by 185 Hippolytus had gathered all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John they are still just as true today so he,Hippolytus had a canon.

Negative...only The Church as a whole (in it's complete state) was guided by The Holy Spirit. One could create an exact replica of The Canon of The Holy Bible by shear coincidence and it still wouldn't mean that they were guided by The Holy Spirit.

Remember, only on Bible is "The" Holy Bible...all others are "versions" and for over a millenia and a half, The Christian Faith has had only "1" Holy Bible.

Missing books, heretical works, none of that make The Holy Bible.

When Jesus taught, He never taught that only "some" of The Commandments were relevant and necessary. He taught all of them were. Therefore, the same "must" be with The Word of God.

A "partial" bible yields only "partial" truth...not the "whole" truth.

Again, no sanctified collection of books (Holy Bible) existed "before" the 4th Century and there was no way of knowing what works were to be trusted without the guidance of The Holy Spirit (which on matters of doctrinal teaching only resides in The Church as promised by Christ).

[yarddog]

Jul 14, 2008 15:19:41 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Great question. The Books existed, but God hadn't revealed to men yet which were to be used in The Bible. That was left for The Church to decide under the guidance of The Holy Spirit.

Did God intend for man to bring all the works into one book when he inspired the writers? I don't know but when man decided to do that, then I have no doubt that God guided them.

Of course not, but it did separate the truths from the false gospels (over 100) that were floating around at the time. That's why canonization was important.

Not all of the writings that failed to make it into the Bible were false. We have the writings of Clement, Papias, etc... which have truths and worthy of use in understanding the early Church.

How could one believe that Jesus "didn't" die, that he was married, that he had children? Those books were floating around too and were being taught by heretical sects. So you see, it wasn't known to be "truth" until The Church revealed this.

It wasn't known to the fullness of the Church which were inspired but those writings were still the same before as after.

And, they didn't exist as they do today within The Holy Bible. There were different compilations, but none were held to be The Holy Bible.

I understand.

Canonization "did" in fact make them worthy. Until they were authorized for Church teaching, any book was up for grabs as to be believed in. Again, remember all of the false gospels out there.

No, the Church did not "make" them worthy, the Church recognized that they were worthy. God's truths are eternal, they don't become worthy when man says they are. Man cannot dictate to God.

If you're referring to The Deuterocanonical Books, they were always included in The Canon (even during Jesus' time).

No, I wasn't referring to the Deuterocanonical. I may not have wrote it clear enough but I was referring to the Books that are in the NT. These books, such as Matthew, or all of Paul's letter, were worthy when written.
As for the Deuterocanonical Books, we don't know which were in the Temple and used as scripture.

Again, without The Church, we wouldn't know today what is to be considered The Word of God. God chose it to reveal The Canon. There had to be a reason that some books were chosen and others were rejected.

I understand that.

And the fact is that no Holy Bible existed before The 4th Century although uncanonized Scriptures did.

True, no single grouping of books was recognized by the whole Church until the 4th century. That does not change that the inspired Books were there. Only that the Church failed to recognize them.

Remember brother YD, it is The Church (and not The Bible) that supports The Truth and that reveals The Truth. The Bible is only a tool "of" The Church. The Church existed before The Bible and it is The Church that The Bible talks about whenever it talks about The Church.

If you believe that the Bible contains inspired scripture then the Bible also supports the Truth and it is not "only" a tool of the Church, it is one of the greatest tools, but not the only tool, of the Church.


God Bless,
Yarddog

[Cepha]

Jul 15, 2008 13:08:40 GMT -5 yarddog said:

Jul 14, 2008 15:19:41 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Did God intend for man to bring all the works into one book when he inspired the writers? I don't know but when man decided to do that, then I have no doubt that God guided them.

That's a very "chicken and the egg" question!

Here's the thing..."it" (The Holy Bible) exists. We take it wholeheartedly as created by God, but why? Not because The Holy Bible itself says so, but because The Catholic Church said so. So, how do we know really?

If God chose these men to write them, who's to say He didn't choose men to canonize them? Again, the only reason we know that it's The Word of God is because The Church says so, yet, The Holy Bible never says so.

So, based on that, if we remove The Church from it's inception, then we also have to remove the belief The Church revealed...that The Holy Bible is The Word of God.

Not all of the writings that failed to make it into the Bible were false. We have the writings of Clement, Papias, etc... which have truths and worthy of use in understanding the early Church.

True, we also have The Didache (which was written before all of the books in The Bible were written).

But only a certain set were deemed canonical as The Word of God. Again, because The Church said so.

No, the Church did not "make" them worthy, the Church recognized that they were worthy. God's truths are eternal, they don't become worthy when man says they are. Man cannot dictate to God.

But if The Church never said that they were worthy and they weren't included, would you believe that they were inspired by God on your own?

Is there any guarantee that The Holy Spirit would reveal that to you?

If so, why not now then? Are there any books that you read that you are told by The Holy Spirit that they are indeed inspired by God?

And you're right, man cannot dictate to God, but can to other men...this is what Jesus meant when He told Peter and The Apostles that whatever they bind and loosen on earth is bound and loosened in heaven...why? Because heaven is following earth's lead?

No. It's because whatever Peter and The Apostles do is led "from" heaven as they are guided by The Holy Spirit (which Jesus breathed upon them).

God's truths become "known" when His chosen (The Church) reveal them to us at His choosing of time and place.

Or else, we'd have a lot more Jim Jones running around.

No, I wasn't referring to the Deuterocanonical. I may not have wrote it clear enough but I was referring to the Books that are in the NT. These books, such as Matthew, or all of Paul's letter, were worthy when written.
As for the Deuterocanonical Books, we don't know which were in the Temple and used as scripture.

They were inspired by God, but the only way you know this today is because they are in The Bible. And why are they in The Bible? Because God revealed them to His Church.

And regarding the Deuterocanonicals, we "do" now which were in The Temple and used as scripture...all of them. They are part of The Septuagint version of The Old Testament that Jesus and The Apostles used.

So we know them to be considered to be scriptural by Christ Himself (who's quoted and referred to them).

True, no single grouping of books was recognized by the whole Church until the 4th century. That does not change that the inspired Books were there. Only that the Church failed to recognize them.

Or, that God didn't reveal them as canonical yet because He hadn't moved these men to canonize The Bile yet.

Again, the only way that we know that their inspired today is because their in The Bible. And again, it was The Church that God chose to put them there.

If The Church is good enough for God, it's good enough for me.

Remember brother YD, it is The Church (and not The Bible) that supports The Truth and that reveals The Truth. The Bible is only a tool "of" The Church. The Church existed before The Bible and it is The Church that The Bible talks about whenever it talks about The Church.

If you believe that the Bible contains inspired scripture then the Bible also supports the Truth and it is not "only" a tool of the Church, it is one of the greatest tools, but not the only tool, of the Church.

I never said it was the only tool.

But, it is "His" chosen tool to reveal The Holy Bible to us and on that matter, there is no room for personal interpretation. God chose The Catholic Church to reveal His Word to.

Amen.

1 Timothy 3:14-15
"These things write I unto thee,
hoping to come unto thee shortly;
but if I tarry long,
that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God,
which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth."

Pax

[yarddog]

Here's the thing..."it" (The Holy Bible) exists. We take it wholeheartedly as created by God, but why? Not because The Holy Bible itself says so, but because The Catholic Church said so. So, how do we know really?

Actually, I found scripture before I found the Church. I was raised, off and on, in the Baptist Church. I left in my early teens because I didn't like the message.

I was later baptized in the Holy Spirit in my home, late at night. God then led me to scripture and began revealing them to me. After God rid me of my pride he then told me to get baptized and fellowship with other christians. I then joined the Catholic Church.

So we can find comfirmation of scripture from God and not the Church.

If God chose these men to write them, who's to say He didn't choose men to canonize them? Again, the only reason we know that it's The Word of God is because The Church says so, yet, The Holy Bible never says so.

Matthew was part of the Church, along with all of the writers of the NT. So if the Church wrote the Books of the NT it was already canonized but things got a little lost and other writings began to appear which were spurious and some of the Church followed.

So, based on that, if we remove The Church from it's inception, then we also have to remove the belief The Church revealed...that The Holy Bible is The Word of God.

I've never removed the Church from the equation. I've always said that the Bible did exist before the canonization of the 4th century.

True, we also have The Didache (which was written before all of the books in The Bible were written).

We really don't know the exact time period of the Didache. Some date it as early as 50 AD while others into the 2nd century.

But only a certain set were deemed canonical as The Word of God. Again, because The Church said so.

This would tend to mean that the Church believes that it wasn't a product of the Apostles but another person or set of people.

But if The Church never said that they were worthy and they weren't included, would you believe that they were inspired by God on your own?

Yes.

Is there any guarantee that The Holy Spirit would reveal that to you?

Yes.

If so, why not now then? Are there any books that you read that you are told by The Holy Spirit that they are indeed inspired by God?

Personally, I believe that the books of the NT were written by Holy Spirit inspired men but not that each and every word is accurate. I believe that all that was written about God is perfect but there are instances where things are told a little differently. Time lines may vary or items which don't apply to matters of faith.

I also believe that many of the early Church Fathers were Holy Spirit filled men that also wrote the truth.

And you're right, man cannot dictate to God, but can to other men...this is what Jesus meant when He told Peter and The Apostles that whatever they bind and loosen on earth is bound and loosened in heaven...why? Because heaven is following earth's lead?

No. It's because whatever Peter and The Apostles do is led "from" heaven as they are guided by The Holy Spirit (which Jesus breathed upon them).

I agree totally.

God's truths become "known" when His chosen (The Church) reveal them to us at His choosing of time and place.

But the Church made them known at the time of the writing and they had to be reconfirmed later because of many spurious writings.

And regarding the Deuterocanonicals, we "do" now which were in The Temple and used as scripture...all of them. They are part of The Septuagint version of The Old Testament that Jesus and The Apostles used.

I've read alot of material and found one that showed any proof that the Deut.s were used in the Temple. We don't know for sure if the Septuagint was there either. Most info I've seen is speculation and not proof.
If you have a site that can provide proof, I'd like to see it.

So we know them to be considered to be scriptural by Christ Himself (who's quoted and referred to them).

I know that the Apostles used the Septuagint when writing about what Jesus said but Jesus spoke Aramaic and spoke mainly to the Jews, so it makes more since that he used the Hebrew and Aramaic text.

Or, that God didn't reveal them as canonical yet because He hadn't moved these men to canonize The Bile yet.

Isn't that that chicken and egg thing you referred to. ;D

Again, the only way that we know that their inspired today is because their in The Bible. And again, it was The Church that God chose to put them there.

I understand what you are saying.

I never said it was the only tool.

No, but you did say that it was "only" a tool.

But, it is "His" chosen tool to reveal The Holy Bible to us and on that matter, there is no room for personal interpretation. God chose The Catholic Church to reveal His Word to.

And where ever you find God's Holy Spirit, you also find his Church. Whatever name is on the sign outside.

Praise be his Holy name,
God Bless,
Yarddog

[Cepha]

Jul 15, 2008 17:21:52 GMT -5 yarddog said:

Actually, I found scripture before I found the Church. I was raised, off and on, in the Baptist Church. I left in my early teens because I didn't like the message.

That's how I found The Church and reverted back to it. I was born a Catholic, fell away, got seriously lost, but God brought me home. While reading Matthew 16:18, I realized that all I had to do was to find the Church that was founded by Peter and I'd be in His Church...what a shock when I found The Church that I had been bashing (my own) was The Church (oh yeah, as Pro-Catholic as I am now, I used to be Anti-Catholic).

I was later baptized in the Holy Spirit in my home, late at night. God then led me to scripture and began revealing them to me. After God rid me of my pride he then told me to get baptized and fellowship with other christians. I then joined the Catholic Church.

OMGosh...I just read my own reversion story! Identical!

Matthew was part of the Church, along with all of the writers of the NT. So if the Church wrote the Books of the NT it was already canonized but things got a little lost and other writings began to appear which were spurious and some of the Church followed.

The scriptures weren't canonized until the 4th century. Up until then, they were just scriptures among scriptures among scriptures (among hundreds of scriptures).

I've never removed the Church from the equation. I've always said that the Bible did exist before the canonization of the 4th century.

Impossible. The scriptures existed, but they were never brought together into the collection we have today (73 books) until after the 4th century. The Bible never existed "before" the 4th century. They were never a "sanctified collection of books".

You won't find one Christian Holy Bible existing historically before the 4th century. It simply didn't exist.

We really don't know the exact time period of the Didache. Some date it as early as 50 AD while others into the 2nd century.

50-120 A.D. The last book of the Bible is believed to have been written in 150 A.D. making The Didache older than the last book of The Bible.

On top of that, you will find many of The Bible's teachings in The Didache not to mention current Christian traditions that began thousands of years ago.

Never the less, The Didache was completed before The Holy Bible was compiled.

It is the first historical Christian document; Christianity's first catechism.

This would tend to mean that the Church believes that it wasn't a product of the Apostles but another person or set of people.

The Church is a product of Christ. One can't get more literal than "I wil build My Church...". The Church always knew where it came from:

www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Personally, I believe that the books of the NT were written by Holy Spirit inspired men but not that each and every word is accurate. I believe that all that was written about God is perfect but there are instances where things are told a little differently. Time lines may vary or items which don't apply to matters of faith.

Personally, I don't place my faith in a book made of animal skin, paper and ink.

The Word of God is written on men's hearts. All the Bible is is a tool, a sacramental used in worship. We recognize The Word of God when we read it because it is familiar to our hearts. It is (in my opinion) like a key that our faith turns. The purer our faith, the more we turn the key, the more it reveals to us.



But the Church made them known at the time of the writing and they had to be reconfirmed later because of many spurious writings.

The Church isn't perfect, but The Holy Spirit is. Any of The Church's mistakes are The Church's mistakes (not that of The Holy Spirit's).

Remember, that 11 of the 12 Apostles themselves were completely unworthy of Jesus' love and friendship (those that abandoned Him).

I've read alot of material and found one that showed any proof that the Deut.s were used in the Temple. We don't know for sure if the Septuagint was there either. Most info I've seen is speculation and not proof.
If you have a site that can provide proof, I'd like to see it.

Dead Sea Scrolls my brother.

And...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I know that the Apostles used the Septuagint when writing about what Jesus said but Jesus spoke Aramaic and spoke mainly to the Jews, so it makes more since that he used the Hebrew and Aramaic text.

Yes, that would make more sense, but don't forget how many times he referred to scriptures only found in the Duets.

Plus, Koine Greek was the common language of many countries as English/French/Portughese is today. If you wanted to reach as many people as possible, you would speak in a common language (not the minority language).

Isn't that that chicken and egg thing you referred to. ;D

LOL! See how it gets circular?

And where ever you find God's Holy Spirit, you also find his Church. Whatever name is on the sign outside.

Amen. I never said God only dwelled in one community.

He dwells in only one Church, but dwells in any human being that accepts Him.

Only one Church meets his OT requisites and the criteria of Christ and that's the Church that holds The Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament.

[yarddog]

Jul 15, 2008 18:06:53 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The scriptures weren't canonized until the 4th century. Up until then, they were just scriptures among scriptures among scriptures (among hundreds of scriptures).

Nothing that God inspires is "just" anything. All scripture inspired by God's Holy Spirit is "everything to us". When John wrote his Gospel, did he not give it to his Church as the inspired work of the Holy Spirit. When he wrote Revelations was it any less authentic than when the Church finally recognized them a few centuries later.
When Paul wrote any of his Epistles, did he give them as if someone had to rule on them as being canon or did he give them as being the Word of God. These works were always the truth and nothing but the truth. It just took time for the Church to recognize them.

Impossible. The scriptures existed, but they were never brought together into the collection we have today (73 books) until after the 4th century. The Bible never existed "before" the 4th century. They were never a "sanctified collection of books".

I agree, they were never a single collection brought together into one place, but they still existed and the Church wrote them that is why I say that the Bible existed before the Church, later, recognized them again.

You won't find one Christian Holy Bible existing historically before the 4th century. It simply didn't exist.

We can do this all day and night. You should know from what I have written that I know the difference.

50-120 A.D. The last book of the Bible is believed to have been written in 150 A.D. making The Didache older than the last book of The Bible.

Which book was written in 150 AD? That would make it a false book. John was the last of the Apostles and was supposed to have died before 100 AD. Luke and Mark may have outlived John but Mark went to Egypt and was martyred there and Luke appears to have written his Gospel and Acts before the death of Peter and Paul.

It is the first historical Christian document; Christianity's first catechism.

Why wasn't it canonized then?

The Church is a product of Christ. One can't get more literal than "I wil build My Church...". The Church always knew where it came from:

www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

What does that have to do with what I said about the Didache?

Personally, I don't place my faith in a book made of animal skin, paper and ink.

I don't put mine in a book either, I put my faith in God the Father, through his Son, and when I asked a question of God and he said "What does scripture say' and then gave me the verses, I knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is not a book made of animal skin, paper and ink. It is a Book full of the truths of the creator of all things.

The Word of God is written on men's hearts. All the Bible is is a tool, a sacramental used in worship. We recognize The Word of God when we read it because it is familiar to our hearts. It is (in my opinion) like a key that our faith turns. The purer our faith, the more we turn the key, the more it reveals to us.

I like that.

But the Church made them known at the time of the writing and they had to be reconfirmed later because of many spurious writings.

I think that is what I've been saying.

The Church isn't perfect, but The Holy Spirit is. Any of The Church's mistakes are The Church's mistakes (not that of The Holy Spirit's).

Amen

Remember, that 11 of the 12 Apostles themselves were completely unworthy of Jesus' love and friendship (those that abandoned Him).

Good ole John.

Dead Sea Scrolls my brother.

And...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Not sure how your sources help. The Septuagint refers to the first 5 Books or the Torah which were translated by Hebrew scholars for the King of Egypt. These Books were supposed to have been extremely accurate, according to Philo and the DSS's seem to show that the LXX was better than the later Hebrew translations. Many other OT books were translated into Greek but were supposed to have been done very poorly in cases.(According to your sources)
What I haven't seen is anything that can show that Jesus used the Greek translations when he went into the Hebrew Temple.

Yes, that would make more sense, but don't forget how many times he referred to scriptures only found in the Duets.

Thanks for that site. I'm going to check it out. I have a copy of the Good News Bible, which the RCC gave me while attending RCIA classes. They have a list quotes from the OT that are in the NT. None of them show a scripture from the Deut.s.

Plus, Koine Greek was the common language of many countries as English/French/Portughese is today. If you wanted to reach as many people as possible, you would speak in a common language (not the minority language).

But Jesus wasn't trying to reach as many as he could, he was leaving that to the Church. He focused on Israel and the Jew. It is quite reasonable for the Apostles to use the Greek since it would be better known to the Gentiles and Jews that had been spread out.

LOL! See how it gets circular?

"Will it go round in circles"
Who was that that sang that? Billy Preston

He dwells in only one Church, but dwells in any human being that accepts Him.

Amen!!!!!! Amen!!!!!!
Too bad some of these others can't see the beauty which flows out of the Catholic Church.

Our small Church is closing soon and a larger will takes its place. I love it small but these new priests that have been assigned are truely gifted men. My son is finally listening to the sermons.

God Bless,
Yarddog

[teresahrc]

Yarddog, I'm like you, I was a pagan, then I read the BIble then I went to protestant churches , then I became Catholic.

But now, in retrospect, I think that when I found the Bible I DID find the CHurch though I didn't realize it because the Bible is Catholic! In fact, when I read the BIble in those early years, I was constantly wondering why what I read didn't match what I saw in Church.
Now that I'm Catholic, I see how much more the Bible makes sense, and I don't have to "ignore" certain verses like I did before when I was a "Bible believing" protestant. I greatly revered the Bible, but wasn't really able to obey it fully as a protestant.

teresa

[yarddog]

Jul 16, 2008 9:29:00 GMT -5 @teresahrc said:

Yarddog, I'm like you, I was a pagan, then I read the BIble then I went to protestant churches , then I became Catholic.

But now, in retrospect, I think that when I found the Bible I DID find the CHurch though I didn't realize it because the Bible is Catholic! In fact, when I read the BIble in those early years, I was constantly wondering why what I read didn't match what I saw in Church.
Now that I'm Catholic, I see how much more the Bible makes sense, and I don't have to "ignore" certain verses like I did before when I was a "Bible believing" protestant. I greatly revered the Bible, but wasn't really able to obey it fully as a protestant.

teresa

Hello Teresa,
The Spirit of God works within people in many different ways and I am thrilled to see how it is working in you. I don't have a problem with Protestants and have many many friends in those churches. They have a tremendous love for God.

One thing that I do feel sad about is their complaining about Catholic Traditions yet they cannot see that they have traditions of their own which gives them their views. How can one complain about one churches tradition while holding to their own? Their mistrust of Catholic traditions go back 100's of years yet many cannot see the great love and faith that exists in the Catholic Church that is before their very eyes today.

The Catholic Church, in their wisdom, has seen the works of the Holy Spirit within many other churches and even religions. It is the Holy Spirit which allows this insight.

We are called into ecumenism and we need to reflect how the Catholic Church approaches others. Very humbly.

A wall is built brick by brick, and there is a brick wall between many of the churches. I wish that we could smash that wall down but sometimes walls need to be torn down brick by brick. Let us all begin to take a brick down, instead of adding to it.

The Bible is a truely wonderous work of God, but man cannot begin to understand those wonders without the Holy Spirit to reveal it.

God Bless,
Yarddog

[Cepha]

Jul 16, 2008 0:06:37 GMT -5 yarddog said:

When Paul wrote any of his Epistles, did he give them as if someone had to rule on them as being canon or did he give them as being the Word of God. These works were always the truth and nothing but the truth. It just took time for the Church to recognize them.

While Paul was an authoritative teacher, he certainly could not canonize anything. No one man had that authority. The canon had to be decided by The Church's heirchy as a whole in full consensus, otherwise, there would've been rogue Christians starting their beliefs based on "other than The Holy Spirit's" inspiration (such as you have with the Gnostics).

And, it's not that it took time for The Church to recognize them, it's that God chose that time to reveal it to them. They themselves didn't decide what was to be canonical, but were chosen by God and revealed through The Holy Spirit.

I agree, they were never a single collection brought together into one place, but they still existed and the Church wrote them that is why I say that the Bible existed before the Church, later, recognized them again.

The Scriptures existed, but not The Bible. No scriptures could be trusted. Until The Church said it was ok. Why? Because of all of the heretical works floating around.

It was The Church that revealed to man what was to be considered His Word. God didn't reveal this to each man individually, but to The Church first. Why? Because only the Church was fully devoted to one thing...spreading The Gospel while the rest of mankind were focused on living out their roles in life (being fathers, sons, mothers, nieces, workers, leaders, etc...).

That's why The Church was in such disarray with so many heresies. There was no formal union to openly discuss, reveal and decide "what" was Christianity. Up until the 4th Century, the councils were fleeting and done in haste as they were being persecuted unto death.

Notice, when was it that The Church exploded? After the 4th Century. Why? Because they went from being a persecuted minority to being protected under Roman Rule (which was the civilized world).

Which book was written in 150 AD? That would make it a false book. John was the last of the Apostles and was supposed to have died before 100 AD. Luke and Mark may have outlived John but Mark went to Egypt and was martyred there and Luke appears to have written his Gospel and Acts before the death of Peter and Paul.

2 Peter en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Date_of_composition

Why wasn't it canonized then?

The simple answer to that is because God didn't want it so.

Not sure how your sources help. The Septuagint refers to the first 5 Books or the Torah which were translated by Hebrew scholars for the King of Egypt. These Books were supposed to have been extremely accurate, according to Philo and the DSS's seem to show that the LXX was better than the later Hebrew translations. Many other OT books were translated into Greek but were supposed to have been done very poorly in cases.(According to your sources)
What I haven't seen is anything that can show that Jesus used the Greek translations when he went into the Hebrew Temple.

The Septugaint is the complete Jewish Scriptures along with The Deuterocanonical books (not just The Torah).

Didn't I list the Deuterocanonical references by Jesus? Sorry: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
There, you'll find Duet only scriptural references by Christ and The Apostles.

Thanks for that site. I'm going to check it out. I have a copy of the Good News Bible, which the RCC gave me while attending RCIA classes. They have a list quotes from the OT that are in the NT. None of them show a scripture from the Deut.s.

Unbelievable...no quotes from Sirach? Mach? Are you sure?

You may have been given a Protestant version of The Good News Bible (which is The Bible that brought me home too brother! But mine was for sure a Catholic [universal] version because it had Sirach).

I have one right here and I can open up to any page in the NT and find Duet references.

But Jesus wasn't trying to reach as many as he could, he was leaving that to the Church. He focused on Israel and the Jew. It is quite reasonable for the Apostles to use the Greek since it would be better known to the Gentiles and Jews that had been spread out.

Ah, but you forget, His mission evolved from just The Jews to coming for "all" man. Remember? When the Samaritan woman (an ethnical Jew, but not religiously a Jew so she would be considered a non-believer and worshiped a different God) came to Him did He reject her? No. When He pointed out to her that He came for The Jews, she showed an incredible amount of faith that warmed His heart to her and He then did what she asked and even praised her. From that moment on, He served all mankind (not just the Jews, but even their sworn enemies like The Samaritans). He also used non-Jews to show Jews what was expected of them by God.

Too bad some of these others can't see the beauty which flows out of the Catholic Church.

Amen to that. I've seen beauty in other Christian churches and I have a great deal of love for non-Catholic Christians who truly represent the best of Christianity and feel sorry for Catholics who don't know themselves the gift we have.

Some of us are like The Jews in Jesus' time. Blessed, but not appreciative of our blessing. I must have done something right in my life sometime because God saw it fit to reveal to me the beauty of

Our small Church is closing soon and a larger will takes its place. I love it small but these new priests that have been assigned are truely gifted men. My son is finally listening to the sermons.

I'm not a big fan of the "new" Churches.
I like the traditional design of the Medieval style Churches.
But, as long as The Eucharist is there, that's all that matters!

And, LUCKY FOR YOU that you're getting good Priests!
There is definately a revival in the vocations today!
God is reaching out and calling up real men to be Priests today!

When I have my own personal self sorted out, after I've lived a fruitful life,
I'm going to really look into becoming a Priest. Have I felt the calling? Yeah.
When I see them administering The Eucharist, I think there can be no better
service to God. I choke up when they consecrate The Host.

When I get married, I want to become a Deacon.
Then, if my wife passes before me, I'll go into the Priesthood.

Would I be a good Priest? I think so. Why? Because I will tell a person the truth
about The Truth. But again, I have a lifetime of preparation for "if" that day comes.

Could I do it? Absolutely I could. More and more I can see myself being happy
living that type of life. Imagine...actually living "in" The Church? Actually waking
up in God's house? Even just talking about it makes me want to go to Seminary.




Pax.

[Cepha]

Jul 16, 2008 9:29:00 GMT -5 @teresahrc said:

Yarddog, I'm like you, I was a pagan, then I read the BIble then I went to protestant churches , then I became Catholic.

But now, in retrospect, I think that when I found the Bible I DID find the CHurch though I didn't realize it because the Bible is Catholic! In fact, when I read the BIble in those early years, I was constantly wondering why what I read didn't match what I saw in Church.
Now that I'm Catholic, I see how much more the Bible makes sense, and I don't have to "ignore" certain verses like I did before when I was a "Bible believing" protestant. I greatly revered the Bible, but wasn't really able to obey it fully as a protestant.

teresa

Like I always say, nothing makes a great Catholic Apologist like a former Protestant!

Wow. The way you put things!

I challenge any Anti-Catholic to take their bible and to go sit in a Catholic Church and to read Leviticus & Exodus and The Book of Revelations and to look around at how God describes His Church! I guarantee you that they will be shaken!

If they were allowed to read their bibles without the interference of men,
if they had enough faith to trust God to read The Bible without any preconceived
notions, OMGosh would their eyes be opened!

Like yours have.

[Cepha]

Jul 16, 2008 10:40:29 GMT -5 yarddog said:

One thing that I do feel sad about is their complaining about Catholic Traditions yet they cannot see that they have traditions of their own which gives them their views. How can one complain about one churches tradition while holding to their own? Their mistrust of Catholic traditions go back 100's of years yet many cannot see the great love and faith that exists in the Catholic Church that is before their very eyes today.

Fact is, most Protestants don't even know why their Protestants. Most are born into Protestantism. So, they were mis-indoctrinated from birth. Not their fault, so we have to consider that when judging their opinions of us.

The Catholic Church, in their wisdom, has seen the works of the Holy Spirit within many other churches and even religions. It is the Holy Spirit which allows this insight.

The Catholic Church also was never born out of protesting any other religion (another sign of a pure birth). Protesting is not our foundation, it's not in our name, it's not how we describe ourselves.

We are not denominational Christians, but universal (not belonging to any man made denomination, but being one Christian body with universal aka "catholic" Christian beliefs).

We are called into ecumenism and we need to reflect how the Catholic Church approaches others. Very humbly.

Amen. While I'm quite the Templar when I have to be, the last thing I want to do is to present a poor image of the true Catholic.

As I say, I'd rather be a black sheep in Christ's flock than the whitest of goats outside of His flock.

I'm far from perfect and I'll be the last one out of Purgatory most likely, but "if" I make it to Purgatory, I'll be happy with that! Because I know what comes after that!

A wall is built brick by brick, and there is a brick wall between many of the churches. I wish that we could smash that wall down but sometimes walls need to be torn down brick by brick. Let us all begin to take a brick down, instead of adding to it.

Reminds me of a saying I love:

"The successful man is one who lays a firm foundation
with the bricks that others throw at him."



Pax.

(Sorry to jump into the convo there folks...but YD's words and T's words just moved me)

[teresahrc]

Knuckle said:
" ---Paul knew Luke Peter knew Paul John knew Peter and Matthew and James they knew what was true so this idea that a council needed to put it's approval on the canon is a bogus claim "

Keep in mind that the first Church council was in the BIBLE! The council of Jerusalem which determined the "rules" that the Gentiles had to keep. (book of Acts)
Church councils are a Biblical way to decide what to do in a controversy that affects the Church. It would be great if all Christians everywhere at all times agreed on everything! But since we don't, somebody has to make the call.
Everyone did not agree on the Canon of Scripture, and apparently people still don't agree. (Do you have a Daniel 13?) What about the Apocrapha? It was in the original KJV, but not anymore. Why not? Where did they put it? Luther didn't like the Book of James (went against his personal theology) I used to ignore verses I didn't like, and even skip over them when I read the Bible.
I'd rather trust what the Catholic Church tell me is scripture.
teresa

[yarddog]

Jul 16, 2008 10:51:19 GMT -5 Cepha said:

2 Peter en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Date_of_composition

Well, if you believe that 2 Peter was written in 150 AD then you are also saying that the Church was wrong. If it were written in 150 AD then much of it is a lie. It was either written by Peter or someone who lied about it. That would that it is not an inspired letter.

The Septugaint is the complete Jewish Scriptures along with The Deuterocanonical books (not just The Torah).

From the New Advent site:

Origin according to the commonly accepted view
As to the Pentateuch the following view seems plausible, and is now commonly accepted in its broad lines: The Jews in the last two centuries B.C. were so numerous in Egypt, especially at Alexandria, that at a certain time they formed two-fifths of the entire population. Little by little most of them ceased to use and even forgot the Hebrew language in great part, and there was a danger of their forgetting the Law. Consequently it became customary to interpret in Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and it was quite natural that, after a time, some men zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch. This happened about the middle of the third century B.C. As to the other Hebrew books -- the prophetical and historical -- it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. It is difficult also to say where the various translations were made, the data being so scanty. Judging by the Egyptian words and expressions occurring in the version, most of the books must have been translated in Egypt and most likely in Alexandria; Esther however was translated in Jerusalem (XI, i).

Who were the translators and how many? Is there any foundation for their number, seventy or seventy-two, as given in the legendary account (Brassac-Vigouroux, n. 105)? It seems impossible to decide definitely; the Talmudists tell us that the Pentateuch was translated by five interpreters (Sopherim, c.i.). History gives us no details; but an examination of the text shows that in general that the authors were not Palestinian Jews called to Egypt; and differences of terminology, method, etc. prove clearly that the translators were not the same for the different books. It is impossible also to say whether the work was carried out officially or was merely a private undertaking, as seems to have been the case with Ecclesiasticus; but the different books when translated were soon put together -- the author of Ecclesiasticus knew the collection -- and were received as official by the Greek-speaking Jews.

Unbelievable...no quotes from Sirach? Mach? Are you sure?

I double checked and there are none listed and that is in any of the NT Books through Rev.

You may have been given a Protestant version of The Good News Bible (which is The Bible that brought me home too brother! But mine was for sure a Catholic [universal] version because it had Sirach).

No, I'm sure that it isn't a Protestant version either. It has all of the Deut.s

Ah, but you forget, His mission evolved from just The Jews to coming for "all" man. Remember? When the Samaritan woman (an ethnical Jew, but not religiously a Jew so she would be considered a non-believer and worshiped a different God) came to Him did He reject her? No. When He pointed out to her that He came for The Jews, she showed an incredible amount of faith that warmed His heart to her and He then did what she asked and even praised her. From that moment on, He served all mankind (not just the Jews, but even their sworn enemies like The Samaritans). He also used non-Jews to show Jews what was expected of them by God.

Do What? Man how did you get that out of John 4. At least you could have used Mathhew 8, where Jesus confronts the Roman officer with great faith.

Jesus told his Apostles not to go tothe Gentiles or Samaritans but to the lost sheep fo Israel in Matthew 10:5-6. But then tells them in Matthew 10:18 that they will take the Good News to the Gentiles but it is clear that this is after his death.

Amen to that. I've seen beauty in other Christian churches and I have a great deal of love for non-Catholic Christians who truly represent the best of Christianity and feel sorry for Catholics who don't know themselves the gift we have.

Some of us are like The Jews in Jesus' time. Blessed, but not appreciative of our blessing. I must have done something right in my life sometime because God saw it fit to reveal to me the beauty of

Amen.

When I have my own personal self sorted out, after I've lived a fruitful life,
I'm going to really look into becoming a Priest. Have I felt the calling? Yeah.
When I see them administering The Eucharist, I think there can be no better
service to God. I choke up when they consecrate The Host.

When I get married, I want to become a Deacon.
Then, if my wife passes before me, I'll go into the Priesthood.

Would I be a good Priest? I think so. Why? Because I will tell a person the truth
about The Truth. But again, I have a lifetime of preparation for "if" that day comes.

Could I do it? Absolutely I could. More and more I can see myself being happy
living that type of life. Imagine...actually living "in" The Church? Actually waking
up in God's house? Even just talking about it makes me want to go to Seminary.

I'm sure that you will be great in whatever service comes to you.

One thing that I am having a hard time getting down, and it amazes how priests do it, is knowing when to shut up. There are many times when we have to bite our lip and turn the cheek and have faith.

God Bless,
Yarddog

[Cepha]

Jul 16, 2008 22:34:11 GMT -5 yarddog said:

Jul 16, 2008 10:51:19 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Well, if you believe that 2 Peter was written in 150 AD then you are also saying that the Church was wrong. If it were written in 150 AD then much of it is a lie. It was either written by Peter or someone who lied about it. That would that it is not an inspired letter.

It could've been written 1500 years after Peter, it would still be truthful because nothing inspired by The Holy Spirit is false.

The Old Testament was written hundreds if not thousands of years after God created the earth...is it automatically a lie as well?

I double checked and there are none listed and that is in any of the NT Books through Rev.

Septuagint references in The New Testament:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

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

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

No, I'm sure that it isn't a Protestant version either. It has all of the Deut.s

LOL! Ok, but here's one for you...the original King James & Protestant bibles had the Deuts! LOL!

I love to spring that on them to throw them off balance every once in a while! ;D

Do What? Man how did you get that out of John 4. At least you could have used Mathhew 8, where Jesus confronts the Roman officer with great faith.

Jesus told his Apostles not to go tothe Gentiles or Samaritans but to the lost sheep fo Israel in Matthew 10:5-6. But then tells them in Matthew 10:18 that they will take the Good News to the Gentiles but it is clear that this is after his death.

Luke 2:27-32

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law,

28 then he received him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, According to thy word, in peace;

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples;

32 A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel.

OT prophecy:
Isaiah 49:6;
Isaiah 51:4;
Isaiah 60:1;
Isaiah 60:3;
Luke 2:32;
Acts 13:47;
Acts 26:23

I'm sure that you will be great in whatever service comes to you.

One thing that I am having a hard time getting down, and it amazes how priests do it, is knowing when to shut up. There are many times when we have to bite our lip and turn the cheek and have faith.

Thank you.

And yeah, that's what I'm working on too...my ego.

Pax

[yarddog]

Jul 17, 2008 8:20:41 GMT -5 Cepha said:

It could've been written 1500 years after Peter, it would still be truthful because nothing inspired by The Holy Spirit is false.

The Old Testament was written hundreds if not thousands of years after God created the earth...is it automatically a lie as well?

2 Peter
Chapter 1 NAB
1
Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:

This says that this letter's author is Simon Peter. If this letter is actually written in 150 AD, this first line is a lie.

16
We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Has the writer been an eye witness if it were written in 150 AD?

17
For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10 when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."
18
We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.

How could this be written in 150 if the writer heard the voice of God proclaiming Jesus as his Son?

If this letter were written in 150 AD then there are lies in it. In order for it to be truely inspired, it has to have been written by Peter or his scribe before his death.

Luke 2:27-32

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law,

28 then he received him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, According to thy word, in peace;

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples;

32 A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel.

OT prophecy:
Isaiah 49:6;
Isaiah 51:4;
Isaiah 60:1;
Isaiah 60:3;
Luke 2:32;
Acts 13:47;
Acts 26:23

Hey Thanks for more info showing that Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan wasn't what you said.
The Gentiles were prophesied long before the birth of Jesus.

God Bless,
Yarddog

PS. My ex in-Laws used to try and talk me into going into the priesthood but I knew that wasn't my calling. God will pull us in the direction he wishes us to go in, if we allow him.

Let go and follow your calling.

[Cepha]

Jul 17, 2008 8:56:58 GMT -5 yarddog said:

2 Peter
Chapter 1 NAB
1
Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:

This says that this letter's author is Simon Peter. If this letter is actually written in 150 AD, this first line is a lie.

Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity; the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1); Mark, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author is represented as the immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1).

The numerous places in which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8; ii, 21-24; v, 1), as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier, 251). Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and the sermons of St. Peter related in the Acts show an analogy in basis and form which proves a common origin.

However, it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.).

Peter himself seems to insinuate this: Dia Silouanou houmin . . . egrapha (v, 12), and the final verses (12-14) seem to have been added by the Apostle himself.

Without denying that Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors consider that he could not write it in the almost classic manner of this Epistle.

Nevertheless it is impossible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus; it is not improbable that he wrote it according to the directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and exhortations suggested by him.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm

How could this be written in 150 if the writer heard the voice of God proclaiming Jesus as his Son?

If this letter were written in 150 AD then there are lies in it. In order for it to be truely inspired, it has to have been written by Peter or his scribe before his death.

Again, if you apply that to The OT, then it must be a lie to because it wasn't written by God, yet, God speaks in it and it wasn't written by Adam, yet Adam speaks in it.

It wasn't even written by Moses, yet Moses is called the author of the first 5 books.



Date

The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to his death in c 65-67AD. However, it refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date them, regardless of authorship; a date before 60 is not probable.

Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100-150AD[15] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris[16]. For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80-90AD as most probable[17]. For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger [18], Zahn[19], Spitta[20], Bigg[21], and Green[22]. Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60-130 CE, with some reason to favour 80-90 CE."[23]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter#Date

Also...

www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

In his recent book "Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene" Bart Ehrman notes:
whoever wrote 2 Peter, it was not Simon Peter the disciple of Jesus. Unlike 1 Peter, the letter of 2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even known, in the early church.

The first time any author makes a definite reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is 150 years after it was allegedly written. It was finally admitted into the canon somewhat grudgingly, as church leaders of the later third and fourth centuries came to believe that it was written by Peter himself.

But it almost certainly was not... As scholars have long recognized, much of the invective is borrowed, virtually wholesale, from another book that found its way into the New Testament, the epistle of Jude.

This is one of the reasons for dating the letter itself somewhat later... it is dependent on another letter that appears to have been written near the end of the first century.

ambassadorwatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-wrote-2-peter.html

Hey Thanks for more info showing that Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan wasn't what you said.
The Gentiles were prophesied long before the birth of Jesus.

What you've just been shown is Jesus' coming for all mankind.

If He only came for the Jews, He would not have revealed to the Samaritan woman Who He was.

He at first rejected her, but then accepted her.

If He was only to come for Jews, this would certainly have been contradictory to His purpose here. This would make Him disobedient to God The Father Who sent Him.

Right?

Or was this just a special acception?

What I posted shows how Jesus came for all mankind.

He didn't only preach to Jews, but also to Gentiles.

Let go and follow your calling.

More and more, it's starting to look that way, but I have two daughters in their early teens. They need me to raise them first. That is my responsibility first. I've discussed this with several high ranking members of the clergy and they agree with me.

Once their on their own (in about 4-8 years), I'll be able to better make a decision. Would I leave my daughters behind if God was calling me? Absolutely. But He's not calling me yet...He's just hinting at it!