<![CDATA[Religion Forums

<![CDATA[Religion Forums - All Forums]]> http://www.religionforums.org/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:51:37 -0600 MyBB <![CDATA[How do you understand Jesus?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2378.html Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:20:43 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2378.html <![CDATA[Why are you Christian and why so many keep the faith?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2377.html Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:13 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2377.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19FU7Yyx4...re=related]]> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19FU7Yyx4...re=related]]> <![CDATA[Random Words]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2376.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:44:32 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2376.html Can be anything related, not related, opposites, whatever...within reason of course.

And, by the way...YES, I am in fact quite bored (though I'm on three forums at once so no telling how quick I'll reply).

Lets see...to start off...

WORLD]]> Can be anything related, not related, opposites, whatever...within reason of course.

And, by the way...YES, I am in fact quite bored (though I'm on three forums at once so no telling how quick I'll reply).

Lets see...to start off...

WORLD]]> <![CDATA[hi i'm new]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2375.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:29:17 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2375.html i'm an Urartian Polytheist. Urartu was ancient near eastern culture from Armenia.

no surviving mythology exists, but the pantheon has similarities with Mesopotamian and Hurrian. I mainly worship the Triad of Khaldi, Teisheba, and Sivini...]]> i'm an Urartian Polytheist. Urartu was ancient near eastern culture from Armenia.

no surviving mythology exists, but the pantheon has similarities with Mesopotamian and Hurrian. I mainly worship the Triad of Khaldi, Teisheba, and Sivini...]]> <![CDATA[Yes, Jesus WAS God]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2374.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:25:34 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2374.html

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus (Rev. 1:17). This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

But did the early Christians believe this? YES! Here are some quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides: "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

Comments are welcome]]>

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus (Rev. 1:17). This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

But did the early Christians believe this? YES! Here are some quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides: "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

Comments are welcome]]> <![CDATA[Sacraments: What are They ?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2373.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:19:14 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2373.html
God has always worked through men and things: Always. Men were prophets who God spoke through, and men wrote the scriptures, with God working through them.

Here is a good example of the sacramental principle. When Moses raised his staff over the waters and split the Red Sea, who really parted the waters, God or Moses? It was God of course. BUT: The visible sign that the people could see was Moses raising his staff. God provided the people with a visible sign. Basically, that is the sacramental principle: A visible sign which God works through..

So today it is the same. Take Baptism: The visible sign we see is the water being poured over the person, and what we do not see is the miracle of God washing away that person's sins. This is the sacramental principle.

Now take confession. The visible sign we see is the priest holding his hands over us a speaking the words "I absolve you of your sin IN THE NAME OF the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." What we do NOT see is Christ working through the sacrament to effect what the sacrament signifies.

An interesting example of this principle is Jesus rubbing mud in the blind man's eyes. What was it that cured the man's blindness, the mud, or Jesus? Jesus did of course. So why did he bother with the mud? Because God always works through men and things.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1116 Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant.

1123 "The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called 'sacraments of faith.'"

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

I will discuss them individually in the furure, but I wanted to throw them out the for now to here THOUGHTFUL comments.

(NOTE: The Seven Sacraments are also believed and practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, the "Traditional" Anglicans, Coptics, and others. So let us avoid charges of Catholic "inventions" or other derogatory posts. Thank you.)]]>
God has always worked through men and things: Always. Men were prophets who God spoke through, and men wrote the scriptures, with God working through them.

Here is a good example of the sacramental principle. When Moses raised his staff over the waters and split the Red Sea, who really parted the waters, God or Moses? It was God of course. BUT: The visible sign that the people could see was Moses raising his staff. God provided the people with a visible sign. Basically, that is the sacramental principle: A visible sign which God works through..

So today it is the same. Take Baptism: The visible sign we see is the water being poured over the person, and what we do not see is the miracle of God washing away that person's sins. This is the sacramental principle.

Now take confession. The visible sign we see is the priest holding his hands over us a speaking the words "I absolve you of your sin IN THE NAME OF the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." What we do NOT see is Christ working through the sacrament to effect what the sacrament signifies.

An interesting example of this principle is Jesus rubbing mud in the blind man's eyes. What was it that cured the man's blindness, the mud, or Jesus? Jesus did of course. So why did he bother with the mud? Because God always works through men and things.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1116 Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant.

1123 "The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called 'sacraments of faith.'"

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

I will discuss them individually in the furure, but I wanted to throw them out the for now to here THOUGHTFUL comments.

(NOTE: The Seven Sacraments are also believed and practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, the "Traditional" Anglicans, Coptics, and others. So let us avoid charges of Catholic "inventions" or other derogatory posts. Thank you.)]]> <![CDATA[Wondering about the concept of Souls]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2372.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:40:24 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2372.html Firstly, my understanding is most Christians believe the soul is created at the point of conception. Certainly I think this is true of Catholics and most fundamentalists, and is a key rationale behind the rejection of abortion at any time after conception. Watching a recent documentary on how human fertilization and subsequent fetal development and birth occur, I was somewhat surprised to learn that only about 40% of eggs successfully fertilized by sperm ever make it to becoming full term births.
The remaining 60% are not so much the result of abortion or natural miscarriage, but more simply something as innocuous as the fertilized egg does not successfully attach to the wall of the uterus, and is flushed out within a few days of conception. At this point the fertilized egg has begun the process of cell division, and has all the DNA required to “construct” the final new unique individual, but is only up to about 16 cells when it leaves the fallopian tube, nothing even remotely close to a final human being.
Under Christian doctrine what happens to this soul? If the statistic is any where near correct, that means there have been about 2 ½ times as many such “souls” that never were born, as there have been people in the world. And while not all, many would be nothing more than a handful of cells. At a minimum according to fundamentalism (again as I understand), a hand full of cells cannot accept Jesus as its savior, and achieve everlasting life, or by Catholic doctrine be baptized to achieve the same. And if it could, what exactly would that mean for this “life form”?
Relatedly, unless a Christian is an absolute believer in the whole God created Adam story, when does the soul enter human development? Animals don’t have souls, and at some point in evolution we became humans, not animals. From a non religious point of view the distinction is meaningless, as it is a continuum, and human can be defined by any variety of physical or social characteristics. But for a soul to exist there must be a definitive characterization-I guess by God.
So suddenly two “animals” have an offspring, and it is now human, with a soul? And when that now human individual eventually mates with an animal, does the resulting offspring inherit the existence of a soul like the one parent? Eventually that capacity to have a soul, almost like a specific gene, spreads throughout all humanity?
Just wondering how believers in the concept of the soul view such issues.]]> Firstly, my understanding is most Christians believe the soul is created at the point of conception. Certainly I think this is true of Catholics and most fundamentalists, and is a key rationale behind the rejection of abortion at any time after conception. Watching a recent documentary on how human fertilization and subsequent fetal development and birth occur, I was somewhat surprised to learn that only about 40% of eggs successfully fertilized by sperm ever make it to becoming full term births.
The remaining 60% are not so much the result of abortion or natural miscarriage, but more simply something as innocuous as the fertilized egg does not successfully attach to the wall of the uterus, and is flushed out within a few days of conception. At this point the fertilized egg has begun the process of cell division, and has all the DNA required to “construct” the final new unique individual, but is only up to about 16 cells when it leaves the fallopian tube, nothing even remotely close to a final human being.
Under Christian doctrine what happens to this soul? If the statistic is any where near correct, that means there have been about 2 ½ times as many such “souls” that never were born, as there have been people in the world. And while not all, many would be nothing more than a handful of cells. At a minimum according to fundamentalism (again as I understand), a hand full of cells cannot accept Jesus as its savior, and achieve everlasting life, or by Catholic doctrine be baptized to achieve the same. And if it could, what exactly would that mean for this “life form”?
Relatedly, unless a Christian is an absolute believer in the whole God created Adam story, when does the soul enter human development? Animals don’t have souls, and at some point in evolution we became humans, not animals. From a non religious point of view the distinction is meaningless, as it is a continuum, and human can be defined by any variety of physical or social characteristics. But for a soul to exist there must be a definitive characterization-I guess by God.
So suddenly two “animals” have an offspring, and it is now human, with a soul? And when that now human individual eventually mates with an animal, does the resulting offspring inherit the existence of a soul like the one parent? Eventually that capacity to have a soul, almost like a specific gene, spreads throughout all humanity?
Just wondering how believers in the concept of the soul view such issues.]]> <![CDATA[Who Collects Religious Movies?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2371.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:42:04 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2371.html Do any of you collect religious (Christian) movies?

My current list of religious movies and documentaries I own is:

MOVIES:
The Agony and the Ecstasy
A.D.
Passion of the Christ
Jesus of Nazareth
The Robe
Demetrius and the Gladiators
Barabbas
The Song of Bernadette
The Ten Commandments
Beckett
A Man For All Seasons
The Nativity Story
Quo Vadis
Ben Hur

DOCUMENTARIES:
Footprints of God: Mary
Footprints of God: Peter
Footprints of God: David/Solomon
National Geographic: Inside the Vatican]]> Do any of you collect religious (Christian) movies?

My current list of religious movies and documentaries I own is:

MOVIES:
The Agony and the Ecstasy
A.D.
Passion of the Christ
Jesus of Nazareth
The Robe
Demetrius and the Gladiators
Barabbas
The Song of Bernadette
The Ten Commandments
Beckett
A Man For All Seasons
The Nativity Story
Quo Vadis
Ben Hur

DOCUMENTARIES:
Footprints of God: Mary
Footprints of God: Peter
Footprints of God: David/Solomon
National Geographic: Inside the Vatican]]> <![CDATA[Would you sever your hand?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2370.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:51:09 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2370.html If they troubled you;
if they led you to sin against Jesus’ ethical code;
as he instructed his followers.
Jesus told you to do it.
Do you know of anybody in TWO THOUSAND YEARS of Jesus’ religion that has done that?
Why was this instruction never obeyed?
Sure, most violations of Jesus' code were done by those members of the body of his followers!
Sure, we would see a lot of the faithful mutilated!
So, why not follow Jesus' instruction, I ask?
Not one case in 2000 years?!...]]> If they troubled you;
if they led you to sin against Jesus’ ethical code;
as he instructed his followers.
Jesus told you to do it.
Do you know of anybody in TWO THOUSAND YEARS of Jesus’ religion that has done that?
Why was this instruction never obeyed?
Sure, most violations of Jesus' code were done by those members of the body of his followers!
Sure, we would see a lot of the faithful mutilated!
So, why not follow Jesus' instruction, I ask?
Not one case in 2000 years?!...]]> <![CDATA[Vatican begins Youtube presence]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2369.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:39:39 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2369.html .

Quote from site:

Quote:This channel offers news coverage of the main activities of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and of relevant Vatican events.
It is updated daily.
Video images are produced by Centro Televisivo Vaticano (CTV), texts by Vatican Radio (RV) and CTV.
This video-news presents the Catholic Church's position regarding the principal issues of the world today.
Links give access to the full and official texts of cited documents.

There are some very interesting videos there.

Click Here to visit the website.
http://www.youtube.com/vatican]]> .

Quote from site:

Quote:This channel offers news coverage of the main activities of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and of relevant Vatican events.
It is updated daily.
Video images are produced by Centro Televisivo Vaticano (CTV), texts by Vatican Radio (RV) and CTV.
This video-news presents the Catholic Church's position regarding the principal issues of the world today.
Links give access to the full and official texts of cited documents.

There are some very interesting videos there.

Click Here to visit the website.
http://www.youtube.com/vatican]]> <![CDATA[The Catholic Church - The Truth]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2368.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:53:10 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2368.html
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established. The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. Any merely human organization would have collapsed long ago. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with over a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
.

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

.

.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20). He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church. The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

adapted excerpts from this source:
http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp]]> <![CDATA[Faith?]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2367.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:47:09 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2367.html “Invisible Things”, Hebrews 11:1.
It’s another horror against reason.
How can you believe “things” that you know nothing about because they are supposed to be invisible?!
If a religious thing is invisible, how can you believe it, and offer your money to support it?
Think, using your brain; not somebody else’s brain.
Try it; it’s easy & rewarding!]]> “Invisible Things”, Hebrews 11:1.
It’s another horror against reason.
How can you believe “things” that you know nothing about because they are supposed to be invisible?!
If a religious thing is invisible, how can you believe it, and offer your money to support it?
Think, using your brain; not somebody else’s brain.
Try it; it’s easy & rewarding!]]> <![CDATA[Jesus’ biggest exaggeration!]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2366.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:40:32 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2366.html Matthew 28:18.
“ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven and on earth!”
No. He cheated.
It was not true. We have now two thousand years of a bloody history of his religion to prove it.
Do you want to know more about this horrendous falsehood?]]> Matthew 28:18.
“ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven and on earth!”
No. He cheated.
It was not true. We have now two thousand years of a bloody history of his religion to prove it.
Do you want to know more about this horrendous falsehood?]]> <![CDATA[FOUR living creatures]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2365.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:47:16 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2365.html “And in the midst of the throne and around the throne there are four living creatures that are full of eyes in front and behind.”—Revelation 4:6b.
And the first living creature is like a lion, and the second living creature is like a young bull, and the third living creature has a face like a man’s, and the fourth living creature is like a flying eagle.” (Revelation 4:7)

Why do these four living creatures look so different, one from another? These distinctive living creatures evidently highlight specific godly qualities.

First, there is the lion. A lion is used in the Bible as a symbol of courage, especially in the pursuit of justice and righteousness. (2 Samuel 17:10; Proverbs 28:1)

Thus, the lion well represents the godly quality of courageous justice. (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 89:14)
The second living creature resembles a young bull. What quality does a bull bring to your mind? To the Israelites the bull was a valuable possession because of its power. (Proverbs 14:4; see also Job 39:9-11.) The young bull, then, represents power, dynamic energy as supplied by Jehovah.—Psalm 62:11; Isaiah 40:26.
The third living creature has a face like a man’s. This must represent godlike love, since on earth man alone was created in God’s image, with the superlative quality of love. (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 22:36-40; 1 John 4:8, 16)
Undoubtedly, the cherubs display this quality as they serve around Jehovah’s throne. What now of the fourth living creature?
This one is like a flying eagle in appearance. Jehovah himself calls attention to the eagle’s great vision: “Far into the distance its eyes keep looking.” (Job 39:29) Hence, the eagle well symbolizes farsighted wisdom. Jehovah is the Source of wisdom. His cherubs exercise divine wisdom as they obey his commands.—Proverbs 2:6; James 3:17.

yes the four great attributes of JEHOVAH are love, justice, wisdom and power]]> “And in the midst of the throne and around the throne there are four living creatures that are full of eyes in front and behind.”—Revelation 4:6b.
And the first living creature is like a lion, and the second living creature is like a young bull, and the third living creature has a face like a man’s, and the fourth living creature is like a flying eagle.” (Revelation 4:7)

Why do these four living creatures look so different, one from another? These distinctive living creatures evidently highlight specific godly qualities.

First, there is the lion. A lion is used in the Bible as a symbol of courage, especially in the pursuit of justice and righteousness. (2 Samuel 17:10; Proverbs 28:1)

Thus, the lion well represents the godly quality of courageous justice. (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 89:14)
The second living creature resembles a young bull. What quality does a bull bring to your mind? To the Israelites the bull was a valuable possession because of its power. (Proverbs 14:4; see also Job 39:9-11.) The young bull, then, represents power, dynamic energy as supplied by Jehovah.—Psalm 62:11; Isaiah 40:26.
The third living creature has a face like a man’s. This must represent godlike love, since on earth man alone was created in God’s image, with the superlative quality of love. (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 22:36-40; 1 John 4:8, 16)
Undoubtedly, the cherubs display this quality as they serve around Jehovah’s throne. What now of the fourth living creature?
This one is like a flying eagle in appearance. Jehovah himself calls attention to the eagle’s great vision: “Far into the distance its eyes keep looking.” (Job 39:29) Hence, the eagle well symbolizes farsighted wisdom. Jehovah is the Source of wisdom. His cherubs exercise divine wisdom as they obey his commands.—Proverbs 2:6; James 3:17.

yes the four great attributes of JEHOVAH are love, justice, wisdom and power]]> <![CDATA[if god.....]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2364.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:43:57 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2364.html <![CDATA[if god....]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2363.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:03:33 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2363.html <![CDATA[Mary - Queen of Heaven]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2362.html Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:23:04 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2362.html Is Mary's Queenship Biblical?
By Edward P. Sri
source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

Mary’s title as "Queen of Heaven and Earth" is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing "Hail, holy queen enthroned above" or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?

One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Mary’s queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the "queen mother" in the Davidic kingdom.

In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.

The great pre-eminence of the king’s mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)—imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.

A number of Old Testament passages reflect the important role of the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom. For example, almost every time the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings introduces a new monarch in Judah, it mentions the king’s mother as well, showing the mother’s intimate involvement in her royal son’s reign. Similarly, the queen mother is listed among the members of the royal court whom king Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon in 2 Kings 24:12.

Her royal office is also described by the prophet Jeremiah, who tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown, symbolic of her position of authority in the kingdom: "Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. . . . Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’" (Jer. 13:18, 20). It is significant that God directed this oracle about the upcoming fall of Judah to both the king and his mother. Addressing both king and queen mother, Jeremiah portrays her as sharing in her son’s rule over the kingdom.

Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:

"So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you’" (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).

This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 ("Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.

This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: "Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife" (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.

A few Old Testament prophecies incorporate the queen mother tradition when telling of the future Messiah. One example is Isaiah 7:14, which originated during a time of dynastic crisis in Judah when Syria and Israel were threatening Jerusalem and plotting to overthrow King Ahaz. God offers Ahaz a sign that the kingdom will continue: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel" (Isa. 7:13–14).

On one level, this passage points to the next king (Hezekiah) as a pledge that the Davidic dynasty will continue despite the threats of invading armies. At the same time, the royal son who is to be named "Emmanuel" points to the future messianic king (cf., Isa. 9:6–7, 11:1–2). This is why the New Testament says Jesus fulfills this prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 1:23).

For our purposes we should note how this prophecy links the mother to her royal son. Since the oracle is addressed specifically to the Davidic household and concerns the continuation of the dynasty, the young woman bearing forth the royal son would be understood as a queen mother. This has implications for our understanding of Mary. Since the mother of the king always ruled as queen mother, we should expect to find the mother of the messianic king playing the role of the true queen mother in the everlasting Kingdom of God.

With this Old Testament background, we can now more clearly see how the New Testament portrays Mary in light of the queen mother tradition.

The Gospel of Matthew has often been called the "Gospel of the Kingdom." Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is "the Son of David," who is the true King of the Jews establishing the "Kingdom of Heaven." With all this kingly imagery, it should not be surprising to find queen mother themes as well.

Right away, Matthew shows explicitly how the infant Jesus is the "Emmanuel" child as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). As we saw above, this prophecy links the royal messianic child with his queen mother. Further, Matthew singles out the intimate relationship between the mother and her royal son by using the phrase "the child and his mother" five times in the first two chapters, recalling the close association between queen mother and royal son as described in the Books of Kings. Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).

We find Mary portrayed against the background of Davidic kingdom motifs in Luke’s Gospel as well, especially in his accounts of the Annunciation and Visitation. First, the angel Gabriel is said to appear to a virgin betrothed to a man "of the house of David" (1:27). Then the angel tells Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:31–33).

Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.

Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in Luke’s account of the Visitation. Elizabeth greets Mary with the title "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title "Mother of my Lord" was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as "my Lord"; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.

Finally, Mary’s queenship can be seen in the great vision described in Revelation 12: "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery" (Rev. 12:1–2). Who is this newborn child? He is described as the messianic king exercising his dominion. In verse 5, the author of Revelation chose the messianic Psalm 2 to describe how this child will "rule all the nations with a rod of iron" (Rev. 12:5, Ps. 2:9). This royal son is taken up to heaven to sit on a throne (Rev. 12:5), and he ushers in the kingdom of God by defeating the devil: "Now the kingdom of our God has come, for the accuser has been throne down" (12:10). Certainly, this newborn child is the royal Messiah, King Jesus.

In this light it is clear who this woman is who gave birth to the messiah: It is Mary. Some people have interpreted this woman in Revelation 12 as merely a symbol either for the Old Testament people of Israel or for the New Testament Church and therefore have concluded that the woman cannot be an individual (i.e., Mary). However, this "either-or" proposition is foreign to the biblical worldview, in which individuals often symbolically represent collective groups. For instance, Adam represented all humanity (Rom. 5:19), and Jacob stood for all of Israel (Ps. 44:4). Given this biblical notion called "corporate personality," the woman in Revelation 12 should be understood as both an individual (Mary) and a symbol for the people of God.

But for our purposes, once we see that this woman is Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is important to note how she is portrayed as queen in this passage. Her royal office is hinted at by the imagery of the sun, moon, and twelve stars, which recalls the Old Testament story of Joseph’s dream in which the sun, moon, and stars bow down before him, symbolizing his future authority (Gen. 37:9–11). Her queenship is made even clearer by the crown of twelve stars on her head. Just like the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18, here Mary is wearing a crown, symbolizing her royal office in the kingdom of heaven. In sum, Revelation 12 portrays Mary as the new queen mother in the Kingdom of God, sharing in her son’s rule over the universe.

We have seen how the Old Testament queen mother tradition serves as an important background for understanding Mary’s royal office. Indeed, the New Testament portrays Mary as the queen mother par excellence. Thus, prayers, hymns, and art giving honor to Mary’s queenship are most fitting biblical responses for Christians. In honoring her as queen mother we do not take anything away from Christ’s glory, but rather we exalt him even more by recognizing the great work he has done in her and through her.

Understanding Mary as queen mother sheds light on her important intercessory role in the Christian life. Just like the queen mother of the Davidic kingdom, Mary serves as advocate for the people in the Kingdom of God today. Thus, we should approach our queen mother with confidence, knowing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: "I will never refuse you."]]> Is Mary's Queenship Biblical?
By Edward P. Sri
source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

Mary’s title as "Queen of Heaven and Earth" is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing "Hail, holy queen enthroned above" or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?

One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Mary’s queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the "queen mother" in the Davidic kingdom.

In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.

The great pre-eminence of the king’s mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)—imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.

]]> I would have to say that my favorite work of art is Michaelangelo's Pieta'.

[Image: Pieta.jpg]

]]> <![CDATA[Hello from California]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2360.html Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:12:59 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2360.html
I am a Catholic (Latin Rite), 47 years old.

Thanks for letting me join]]>
I am a Catholic (Latin Rite), 47 years old.

Thanks for letting me join]]> <![CDATA[DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS]]> http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2359.html Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:28:09 -0600 http://www.religionforums.org/thread-2359.html by James Akin
source: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection. "The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29).

This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals. The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "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 deutero-canonical 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 Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books -- Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation -- and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Rewriting Church History

In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!

Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He 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, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not 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]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled -- the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origen, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origen accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church -- the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!]]> by James Akin
source: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.