rsy2717@aol.com wrote: [...] You responded: :Where does the Bible say it is the sole authority? >1Cor 4:6. "Don't think beyond what is written." |>I realize that RC doctrine is based in the Machabees, but since they |>are not authoritative, they cannot and need not be reconciled to the |>Scriptures. ::Who said they are not authoritative and where did you or they get the ::authority to make such a statement? >God said, in the Law, that idol worshippers are an abomination in >His sight and God will hate them unto four generations. And that >apocryphal fable of 2Mac asserts in the face of the Law that those >worshipping idols can be expiated with a proper sum of money sent >to the temple to make an offering for them. We have no less authority >than God, in our favour. Beware whom you kick against. >>interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. >>Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., >>n.11) and other eminent theological writers. [Perhaps the so-called purgatory:] |>So it's hinted at if you have great imagination? ::It is hinted at even with no imagination. People who view it with an ::opened mind i.e. without their ingrained biases can see it. >Alas, today's exegesis, even the RC one, debunks your weird >interpretations. Even RC theologians (eg. Dr. Ludwig Ott, in: >Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) admit that the major part of the >proof that the so-called purgatory exists is patristic. >>A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., 3:11-1,5: "For >>other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is >>Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, >>silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be >>manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall >>be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what >>sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he >>shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: >>but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." [...] ::Actually it has its basis in the Old Testament. In the Book of the ::prophet Zechariah, the Lord spoke, "I will bring the one third through ::fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them ::as gold is tested" (Zec 13:9). The school of Rabbi Shammai interpreted ::this passage as a purification of the soul through God's mercy and ::goodness, preparing it for eternal life. >Thus, its basis is not the OT but Shammai! Define your terms first. >If you want to quote the OT and happen to quote Shammai, it's fine, >but declare first which books, interpretations, precepts of Shammai >you regard as part of the OT. Then we may proceed further. ::In the Book of Sirach, "Withhold not your kindness from the dead" ::(Sir 7:33), was interpreted as imploring God to cleanse the soul. >Apocryphal fable. That apart, the context speaks about mourning with >the mourners. Snipping is a powerful weapon against the ignorant, but >beware, there are some Protestants who have your additions to the Bible >although not as the Word of God, but partly as a probably useful back- >ground to the Bible, and partly as a textbook on which you can be refuted! >>As far as Maccabees goes, you nor Luther have/had the authority to >>declare them uncanonical. They were declared as such by the early >>Church and remained that way until Luther thought he had the authority >>to throw them out. I don't know where your authority came from to >>declare the canon of Scripture. >The Maccabees were not part of the accepted canon of most of the early >churches with the notable exception of Codex Alexandrinus. It was made >part of the canon by Rome in 382 (I think I remember the date right) but >strongly objected to in other parts of the church ::You are right on with the date. ::The earliest decisions regarding canon were issued by local ::Church councils in North Africa. >The council of Laodicea (396?) omitted almost all the apocrypha - >it added only Baruch. ::The Council of Hippo (AD 399) [EB ::16-17] and the Council at Carthage (AD 419) both approved a list of ::canonical books which consisted of the same 46 Old Testament books ::and 27 New Testament books which would be defined later at the ::Council of Trent (AD 1546). It was the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. ::that officially determined the canon and closed it. >Alas, it omits Baruch. Now, as its canon is final, tear those filthy >pages out of your Bible! The keener you must act, as it condemns idols, >which is a conspicuously uneasy topic for your denomination. Have no >scruples, your leaders have acted even more basely when they set up >the catechism with the Second Commandment nowhere in it, and in exchange >tearing apart the tenth one. :From the council at Hippo: Who on earth was speaking about Hippo? Don't thrust your sordid words into my mouth. :"The Old Testament, then, consists of all together 22 books in number,-- :which also I have heard, is traditionally the number of written :characters used by the Hebrews,--the order of which, and the name of :each, being as follows: first, there is Genesis; Exodus; then Leviticus; :and after this is Numbers; and then Deuteronomy; and following these is :Jesus, Son of Nave; and Judges; and after this is Ruth; and again, :following these are the four books of Kingdoms; of which the first and :second are counted as one, and the third and fourth likewise as one; and :after these there is a first and second Paralipomenon, likewise counted :as one; then Esdras, a first and second in one; and after this is a :book of Psalms; and then one of Proverbs; then Ecclesiastes; and Song of :Songs; and besides these there is Job; and then the Prophets, the twelve :counted as one book; then Isaias; Jeremias, and along with it BARUCH, :Lamentations, and the Letter; and after these, Ezechiel; and Daniel. It :is of these so far enumerated that the Old Testament consists. :(He then mentions the New Testament books.) :The council left no books out it is only your heretical bibles that :omit books. 1) The heretical bibles are committed by >your< denomination; 2) I was speaking about the council of ROME, of which you had written: **************************************************** * It was the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. that * * officially determined the canon and closed it. * **************************************************** A quotation from Denzinger (or if you will: D E N Z I N G E R ) 84: * (From: "Decree of DAMASUS" and the acts of the Roman Synod, * in the year 382) * * Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine * Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she * ought to shun. * The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus * one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, * Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, * Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs * one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, * likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. * Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, * with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel * one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one * book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one * book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. * Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, * Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two * books. (NT follows) My respected and high-esteemed friend! You should have been aware of the simple little fact that if on the internet someone interrupts the quoted material and says "IT" then "it" denotes the last one of those things which are above the inter- ruption and to which "it" is sensibly applicable. And in my quotation "it" was the council of ROME. How did you take the avaricious and preposterous audacity to put such filthy and inconsiderate words into my mouth, to wrest my clear reference to another council, so that you then could triumphantly tread me under foot?! You tried to refute me and happened to refute yourself, by choosing at random Hippo. Why not Carthage, which is later in your text than Hippo? Why did you forget about the last sentence in which the Council of Rome was spoken about? It is not just a simple accidental stumbling on your part (as I really don't suppose that a native speaker cannot discover the denotatum of my objection at first glance but seeks it with five lines above its place in the text) but a pernicious and malignant cavil of an obstinate Romanist advocate, which occurred to him in the state of utmost despair. You probably saw my reference, understood that it was linked to the council of Rome, and looked it up somewhere. To your greatest horror, Baruch was nowhere in the decree of the council of Rome. So you resorted to such a foul and base trick which disgusts even a heathen: you decided to obfuscate and gloss over the issue by making me attach my remark to a council which is FIVE lines above, and TWO councils before that which I was referring to. I cry and protest: if I am wrong then PROVE my error with arguments but not with such a clumsy and perverse method which I unmasked above. Argue, reason, debate! - but don't lie. Please. Further, you made a fool out of your favourite councils (not to say out of yourself) when you quoted something (btw. the reference disappeared somewhere along the pipes and wires of the internet - in your article I found none) which utterly ignores JUDITH, JESUS BEN SIRACH, WISDOM, MACCABEES and TOBIT. Be careful next time and send multiple copies. ----------------------------------------------------------- The question of your quotation is, however, very curious. The following book: Ancient Church Fathers. 38 volumes. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS, Series II Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors Vol. XIV The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church; Canons and Decrees; Canons of Local Synods with Ecumenical Acceptance (found at http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers) has the following report on the council of Carthage (419): | THE CANONS OF THE CCXVII BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE. | COMMONLY CALLED THE CODE OF CANONS OF THE AFRICAN CHURCH. | | A.D. 419 | Elenchus. | | Introductory Note.The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes. | | INTRODUCTORY NOTE. | | An attempt to write a commentary upon all the canons of the African | Code, would have meant nothing less than the preparation of one volume | or more on the canon law of the West. This is impossible and | therefore, interesting as the field would be, I have been compelled | to restrain my pen, and rather than give a scant and insufficient | annotation, I have contented myself with providing the reader with as | good a translation as I have been able to make of the very corrupt | Latin (correcting it at times by the Greek), and have added the | Ancient Epitome and the quaint notes in full of John Johnson from the | Second Edition, of 1714, of his "Clergyman's Vade-mecum," Pt. II., | which occupy little space, but may not be easily reached by the | ordinary reader. The student will find full scholia on these Canons | in Van Espen in the Latin, and in Zonaras and Balsamon in the Greek. | These latter are in Beveridge's Synodicon. | | Johnson writes an excellent Introduction to his Epitome of these | Canons, as follows: | | "Councils were nowhere more frequently called in the Primitive Times | than in Africa. In the year 418-19, all canons formerly made in | sixteen councils held at Carthage, one at Milevis, one at Hippo, that | were approved of, were read, and received a new sanction from a great | number of bishops, then met in synod at Carthage. This Collection is | the Code of the African Church, which was always in greatest repute in | all Churches next after the Code of the Universal Church. This code | was of very great authority in the old English Churches, for many of | the Excerptions of Egbert were transcribed from it. And though the | Code of the Universal Church ends with the canons of Chalcedon,(1) yet | these African Canons are inserted into the Ancient Code both of the | Eastern and Western Churches. These canons though ratified and approved | by a synod, yet seem to have been divided or numbered by some private | and unlearned hand, and have probably met with very unskilful | transcribers, by which means some of them are much confounded and | obscured, as to their sense and coherence. They are by Dionysius | Exiguus and others entituled The Canons of the Synod of Africa. And | though all were not originally made at one time, yet they were all | confirmed by one synod of African bishops, who, after they had | recited the Creed and the twenty canons of the Council of Nice, | proceeded to make new canons, and re-enforce old ones." | | In his "Library of Canon Law" (Bibliotheca Juris Canonici) Justellus | gives these canons, and, in my opinion, gives them rightly, the title | "The Code of Canons of the African Church" (Codex Canonum Ecclesioe | Africanoe), although Hefele(2) describes them as "the collection of | those African Canons put together in 419 by Dionysius Exiguus." Hefele | says that the title Dionysius gave them in his collection was "The | Statutes of an African Council" (Statuta Concilii Africani) which | would certainly be wholly inadequate and misleading; but in the | edition of Dionysius in Migne's Patrologia Latina (Tom. LXVII., col. | 181) in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiasticorum no such title occurs, but | the perfectly accurate one, "A Synod at Carthage in Africa, which | adopted one hundred and thirty-eight canons." This is an exact | description of what took place and of the origin of these most | important dogmatic and disciplinary enactments. Hefele must have been | thinking of Dionysius's Preface where the expression does occur but n | ot as a title. | | (Beveridge. Synodicon, Tom. II., p. 202.) | | Carthage was formerly the head of the whole of Africa, as St. | Augustine tells us in his Epistle CLXII. From this cause it happened | that a great number of councils were held there, gathered from all the | provinces of Africa. Especially while Aurelius as Archbishop was | occupying the throne were these meetings of bishops frequently holden; | and by these, for the establishing of ecclesiastical discipline in | Africa, many canons we re-enacted. At last, after the consulate of | Honorius (XII.) and Theodosius (VIII.), Augustuses, on the eighth day | before the Calends of June, that is to say, on May 25, in the year of | our Lord 419, another Council was held in the same city at which all | the canons previously adopted were considered, and the greater part of | them were again confirmed by the authority of the synod. These canons, | thus confirmed by this council, merited to be called from that day to | this "The Code of Canons of the African Church." These canons were | not at first adopted in Greek but in Latin, and they were confirmed in | the same language. This Dionysius Exiguus distinctly testifies to in | his preface to the "Code of Ecclesiastical Canons," in which they are | included. It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod | were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been | translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its | Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were | confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time | these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the | rest. | | An extremely interesting point arises as to what was the authority of | the collection as a collection, and how this collection was made? | There seems no doubt that the collection substantially as we know it | was the code accepted by the Council of Trullo, the canons of which | received a quasi-ecumenical authority from the subsequent general | imprimatur given them by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second of | Nice. Van Espen has considered this point at great length in | Dissertation VIII. of the First Part of his Commentaries, and to his | pages I must refer the reader for anything like an adequate | presentation of the matter. He concludes (I.) that the "Code owes its | origin to this synod," and argues against De Marca in proof of the | proposition that the collection was not the private work of Dionysius, | but the official work of the council by one of its officials, | concluding with the remark (II.) that "this was the persuasion both of | Greeks and Latins, ... and these canons are set forth by Balsamon with | the title, 'The Canons of the CCXVII. Blessed Fathers who met together | at Carthage.'" In the notes on each canon I shall give the source, | following Hefele in all respects (Hist. of the Councils, vol. il., pp. | 468 et seqq.), and content myself here with setting down a list of the | various councils which made the enactments, with their dates. | | A.D. | Carthage (under Gratus) ................................. 345-348 | " (under Genethlius) .......................... 387 or 390 | Hippo ....................................................... 393 | I. Carthage .................................................... 394 | II. " (June 26) .......................................... 397 | III. " (August 28) ........................................ 397 | IV. " (April 27) ......................................... 399 | V. " (June 15) .......................................... 401 | VI. " (September 13) ..................................... 401 | VII. Milevis (August 27) ........................................ 402 | VIII. Carthage (August 25) ........................................ 403 | IX. " (June) ............................................. 404 | X. " (August 25) ........................................ 405 | XI. " (June 13) .......................................... 407 | XII. and XIII. Carthage (June 16 and October 13) ................. 408 | XIV. Carthage (June 15) .......................................... 409 | XV. " (June 14) .......................................... 410 | XVI. " (May 1) ............................................ 418 | XVII. " (May 25) which adopted the African Code ............ 419 | | The numbering of the African councils differs very widely between the | different writers, and Cave reckons nine between 401 and 608, and | thirty-five Carthaginian between 215 and 533.(1) Very useful tables, | shewing the conclusions of Fuchs, are found at the end of Bruns, | Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Veterum Selecti. | | I need only add that I have frequently used Dr. Bruns's text, but have | not confined myself to it exclusively. Evidently in the Latin, as we | now have it, there are many corrupt passages. In strange | contradistinction to this, the Greek is apparently pure and is clear | throughout. Possibly the Greek translation was made from a purer Latin | text than we now possess. | | [...] | | CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.) | | That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. | | ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in | church under the name of divine Scripture. | But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: | Genesis. | Exodus. | Leviticus. | Numbers. | Deuteronomy. | Joshua the Son of Nun. | The Judges. | Ruth. | The Kings, iv. books. | The Chronicles, ij. books. | Job. | The Psalter. | The Five books of Solomon. | The Twelve Books of the Prophets. | Isaiah. | Jeremiah. | Ezechiel. | Daniel. | Tobit. | Judith. | Esther. | Ezra, ij. books. | Macchabees, ij. books. >>>>>>> Note that it omits BARUCH and LAMENTATIONS ! <<<<<<<<<< | THE NEW TESTAMENT. | | The Gospels, iv. books. | The Acts of the Apostles, j. book. | The Epistles of Paul, xiv. | The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij. | The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij. | The Epistles of James the Apostle, j. | The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j. | The Revelation of John, j. book. | | Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the | other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these | are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church. | | NOTES. | | ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV. | Let nothing besides the canonical Scriptures be read in church. | This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading | of the "passions of the Martyrs" on their Anniversaries is omitted from | the African code. | | JOHNSON. | | These two books [i.e. the two Maccabees] are mentioned only in Dionysius | Exiguus's copy. See Can. Ap. ult., Can. Laod. ult. ====================================================================== And Denzinger 92 says: ) Council of Carthage (III) 397 ) ) The Canon of the Sacred Scripture ) ) Can. 36 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except ) the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name ) of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, ) Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four ) books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, ) five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, ) Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two ) books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament... You see, they also omitted Lamentations and Baruch. Maybe the two canonical collections mentioned in Denz. 92 and "Ancient Church Fathers" were the same but probably it can be ascribed to the fact - clear from the foreword, quoted above - there is no consensus as to the exact dating. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding your version of the Council of Hippo, I was unable to locate it as I had no reference, but lo and behold, it is identical to the following one: From the same book, "Ancient Church Fathers", ? SYNOD OF LAODICEA. ? A.D. 343-381. ? Elenchus. ? HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. ? The Laodicea at which the Synod met is Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, ? also called Laodicea ad Lycum, and to be carefully distinguished from ? the Laodicea in Syria. This much is certain, but as to the exact date ? of the Synod there is much discussion. Peter de Marca fixed it at the ? year 365, but Pagi in his Critica on Baronius's Annals(1) seems to ? have overthrown the arguments upon which de Marca rested, and agrees ? with Gothofred in placing it circa 363. At first sight it would seem ? that the Seventh Canon gave a clue which would settle the date, ? inasmuch as the Photinians are mentioned, and Bishop Photinus began to ? be prominent in the middle of the fourth century and was anathematized ? by the Eusebians in a synod at Antioch in 344, and by the orthodox at ? Milan in 345; and finally, after several other condemnations, he ? died in banishment in 366. But it is not quite certain whether the ? word "Photinians "is not an interpolation. Something with regard to ? the date may perhaps be drawn from the word Pakatianhs ? as descriptive of Phrygia, for it is probable that this division was ? not yet made at the time of the Sardican Council in 343. Hefele ? concludes that "Under such circumstances, it is best, with Remi ? Ceillier, Tillemont, and others, to place the meeting of the synod of ? Laodicea generally somewhere between the years 343 and 381, i.e., ? between the Sardican and the Second Ecumenical Council--and to give up ? the attempt to discover a more exact date."(2) ? ? But since the traditional position of the canons of this Council is ? after those of Antioch and immediately before those of First ? Constantinople, I have followed this order. Such is their position in ? "very many old collections of the Councils which have had their ? origin since the sixth or even in the fifth century," says Hefele. It ? is true that Matthew Blastares places these canons after those of ? Sardica, but the Quinisext Synod in its Second Canon and Pope Leo IV., ? according to the Corpus Juris Canonici,(3) give them the position ? which they hold in this volume. ? ? THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD HELD IN THE CITY OF LAODICEA, IN PHRYGIA ? PACATIANA, IN WHICH MANY BLESSED FATHERS FROM DIVERS PROVINCES OF ASIA ? WERE GATHERED TOGETHER.(1) ? ? [...] ? ? CANON LX. ? [N. B.--This Canon is of most questionable genuineness.] ? THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, ? Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, ? Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; ? 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third ? and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and ? Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, ? Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; ? 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the ? Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. >>>>>>>> Let's compare it with your version of "Hippo": <<<<<<<<< :"The Old Testament, then, consists of all together 22 books in number,-- :which also I have heard, is traditionally the number of written :characters used by the Hebrews,--the order of which, and the name of :each, being as follows: first, there is Genesis; Exodus; then Leviticus; :and after this is Numbers; and then Deuteronomy; and following these is :Jesus, Son of Nave; and Judges; and after this is Ruth; and again, :following these are the four books of Kingdoms; of which the first and :second are counted as one, and the third and fourth likewise as one; and :after these there is a first and second Paralipomenon, likewise counted :as one; then Esdras, a first and second in one; and after this is a :book of Psalms; and then one of Proverbs; then Ecclesiastes; and Song of :Songs; and besides these there is Job; and then the Prophets, the twelve :counted as one book; then Isaias; Jeremias, and along with it BARUCH, :Lamentations, and the Letter; and after these, Ezechiel; and Daniel. It :is of these so far enumerated that the Old Testament consists. Exactly the same! You are using against me, who made a reference to the council of Rome, a doubtful quotation from the council of Laodicea, and call it the council of Hippo! And note that Baruch is here but the other Apocrypha are not! Be careful with your quotations. ? And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according ? to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven ? Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, ? one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the ? Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the ? Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to ? the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revelation is missing ! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ? NOTES. ? ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LX. ? But of the new, the four Gospels--of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of ? John ; Acts; Seven Catholic epistles, viz. of James one, of Peter two, ? of John three, of Jude one ; of Paul fourteen, viz.: to the Romans ? one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians ? one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to the ? Thessalonians two, to the Hebrews one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, ? and to Philemon one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revelation is missing ! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ? It will be noticed that while this canon has often been used for ? controversial purposes it really has little or no value in this ? connexion, for the absence of the Revelation of St. John from the New ? Testament to all orthodox Christians is, to say the least, as fatal to ? its reception as an ecumenical definition of the canon of Holy ? Scripture, as the absence of the book of Wisdom, etc., from the Old ? Testament is to its reception by those who accept the books of what we ? may call for convenience the Greek canon, as distinguished from the ? Hebrew, as canonical. ? We may therefore leave this question wholly out of account, and merely ? consider the matter from the evidence we possess. In 1777 Spittler ? published a special treatise(1) to shew that the list of scriptural ? books was no part of the original canon adopted by Laodicea. Hefele ? gives the following resume of his argument:(2) ? (a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of ? the Laodicean decrees. It might, indeed, be said with Dallaeus and Van ? Espen, that Dionysius omitted this list of the books of Scripture ? because in Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I. ? was in general use. ? (b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful ? translator, this sixtieth canon is also omitted by John of Antioch, ? one of the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of canons, who ? could have had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission. ? (c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has ? the fifty-ninth, has also not included in his collection the sixtieth ? canon so nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian translation ? appear at first to have had this canon.(1) Herbst, in the Tubingen ? Review, also accedes to these arguments of Spittler's, as did Fuchs ? and others before him. Mr. Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of ? Laodicea in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities ? at length attempts to refute all objections, and affirms the ? genuineness of the list, put his conclusions can hardly be accepted ? when the careful consideration and discussion of the matter by Bishop ? Westcott is kept in mind. (History of the Canon of the New ? Testament, IIId. Period, chapter ii. [p. 428 of the 4th Edition.]) My remark: You may look up your reference again, and if Revelation is missing from it then we will know that what you quote is a (pseudo-) Laodicean Canon of Scripture, probably having survived in some Latin writer. But anyway, you don't get too far with your reference against me. The question of the origin apart, you came up with a canon which, although has Baruch but omits the other Apocrypha. I wouldn't call it a good bargain. ====================================================================== ::The other councils as I stated above all agreed with the canon at ::Rome as did most of the early fathers. ::Amazingly enough, these are the same councils that determined the New ::Testament canon that you do accept. Many of the books you accept ::were strongly objected to in the early Church. There was the Muratorian ::fragment that left out Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter and 1 John. That is why ::they had councils to determine once and for all the canon. >They did't "determine" the canon. Determining should require greater >inspiration than writing down the Word of God. For if the Word of God >was weak to present itself as inspired then obviously a greater inspir- >ation was needed to discern them from other writings. Further, "deter- >mining" implies that they could have done even otherwise. Thus, by your >phrase you give away that you feel secure in the position of sporting >with the Word of God at your own personal caprice. ::Why do you not accept the Apocolypse of Peter or the Wisdom of Samuel? >Because they aren't the Word of God. But I ask you another question: >Why don't you accept what your 2Maccabees says about offering sacrifice >for unrepentant dead idol worshippers? :Hey here's an idea. Why don't we just dissect the whole OT and you :can tell me why you do or don't accept precepts in the books you have :in your bible and I'll tell you why I do or don't accept precepts in :my Bible. That will accomplish alot. I don't have time to play games. Such indignated sentences are characteristic of one who has long ago abandoned truth for the sake of self-deception. If you reject anything in "my" canon then you destroy the foundation of your faith. If I prove that the books which you accept and I don't, contain even one heresy, your canon is overthrown, and mine is not. So yout puerile idea does no harm to me but only to you. By the way, I am not at all playing a game. I think the most seriously that 2Mac contains a vile heresy of praying for unrepentant dead idol worshippers who are evidenty frying in hell. Here is a part of my prepared article in refutation of the ludicrous invention of the so-called purgatory (abbrev. LISP): [...] Chew it. :Here is something for your consideration: :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). :The Apostles accepted 2 Maccabees and so do I. As I said before, :I really don't have time to play games so I am going to terminate :our correspondence here. Before you leave me alone with all the dung you have hurled into my face with your warped and laughable cavils, let me defuse your lame efforts in one little paragraph from one of my other posts: ! And the apocryphal book of Enoch was likewise, even quoted (Judas v. 14); ! the Assumption of Moses (ibid. v. 9); Greek poets (Acts 17:28, Tit 1:12). ! Go on, and on the same basis add them to your Bible! ! The gist consequent from these examples is: ________________________________________________________________ \ / \ ************************************************ / > * BEING QUOTED DOESN'T MEAN BEING INSPIRED. * < / ************************************************ \ /______________________________________________________________\ From now on I can turn back your mockery upon your head: :-> but one thing you can never find--anywhere in the Roman Catholic :-> Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi--is :-> THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL ARGUING WITH THE SATAN OVER MOSES' BODY. :-> If you want to find that, you have to look in the ASSUMPTIO MOISIS :-> --in the book Roman Catholics cut out of their Bible. :-> but one thing you can never find--anywhere in the Roman Catholic :-> Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi--is the :-> LORD COMING BACK WITH HIS THOUSANDS OF SAINTS TO JUDGE THE GODLESS. :-> If you want to find that, you have to look in the VISION OF ENOCH :-> --in the book Roman Catholics cut out of their Bible. :-> but one thing you can never find--anywhere in the Roman Catholic :-> Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi--is :-> the CRETANS being ALWAYS LIARS, WICKED BEASTS AND LAZY GLUTTONS. :-> If you want to find that, you have to look in the works of EPIMENIDES :-> --in the books Roman Catholics cut out of their Bible. :-> but one thing you can never find--anywhere in the Roman Catholic :-> Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi--is the :-> MANKIND LIVING, MOVING, AND EXISTING IN GOD, and BEING HIS CHILDREN. :-> If you want to find that, you have to look in the works of EPIMENIDES, :-> ARATOS, CLEANTHES, AND PINDAR--in the books Roman Catholics cut out :-> of their Bible.