So many bibles! Which one to believe?

I stand corrected. What I said, in entirety, is that the claim that the Jews rejected the deutercanonical books is not based upon any rejection on their part of claims by the church concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ from anything contained in these books. Although as you have correctly pointed out, small portions of these books are prophetic, they apparently were not significant enough to warrant any reference in the New Testament. Thus, to claim that the Jews rejected the deutercanonical books primarily or solely because of their Christian content is erroneous at best and disinegenuous at worst.

Eccl. 3:17 is referenced both in Matthew 16:27 and in Romans 2:6-10

Obad. 21 is referenced in Revelation 11:15

Zeph. 3:16 is referenced in Hebrews 12:12

the geneaology of Jesus Christ as given both in Matthew and in Luke refer to the geneaologies in I Chronicles

Ezra 7:25 finds its New Testament counterpart in Colossians 1:28

in John 18:1 Christ crossed the ravine of Neh. 2:15

Depends if you talking about the OT or NT. If the OT, the Church since the beginning had a good idea on what was Scripture. The NT books was verified by the Church, in several 4th century councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Several guidelines was used (such as "Does this book have Apostolic origin?" etc).

Also, I do not believe that one has to have these extra books in there Bible in order to have some secret knowledge not found in the other undisputed books. I am only against those who wish to discredit these books based upon fallacy reasons. For 1,500, Christians have always accepted these books as Scriptures. Protestants took them out for theological conflicts. If someone ask me if they should study these books and/or accept them as Scriptures, I always say yes, simply for the fact that Christians have always accepted them. That's it. These extra books was undisputed among Christians for 1,500 years.

IN IC.XC,
Ramon

For 1,500 years Christians were illiterate and had no clue as to what was really in the Bible. In fact, many of the clergy were illiterate, as well and had virtually no understanding of Latin. Are we to say, then, that Christians should now also be illiterate because it was the practice of the Church for the vast majority of its history?

If folks like yourself are happier having the deutercanonical books in your Bible it really doesn't bother me as long as you work toward getting your fellow Catholics up to speed on them rather than fulminating against those of us who have read them, found them interesting, but do not embrace them as the Word of God.

What does illiteracy have to do with this?

My point is in relation to your point that the deutercanonical books were held by the RCC and the EOC for the first 1,500 years to be the Word of God when, in fact, at best a tiny, tiny minority had actually read them. The depth of ignorance concerning the Bible as a whole was immense.

Are you saying these Early Christians, who was illiterate, had no clue what was Scripture simply because they didn't have a book label "Holy Bible" in there hands?

No. What I am saying is that they, at best, had a vague knowledge that there was some sort of sacred book, but they were personally quite ignorant of its contents, except what they might glean from attending mass.

They were taught by the Church, which Scriptures say is the pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). How could they have know what was in the Bible, as we know it today [a hand printed book tiled together], if such a thing didn't exist?

Of course the Bible existed, but it was very remote and distant from the understanding of the laity. The Church doled out a heady mixture of the Bible, Oral Tradition, and general superstitions (e,g, the myth of St. Ceceilia's spirit singing through the pipes of the organ). It was impossible for a thinking person to determine the accuracy of any of these things.

While certain books in the NT was debatable, by the end of the 4th Century, the Canon was settle. People were taught about Holy Scriptures in Church. They heard the OT being read. They heard stories and teachings of Christ being read from Scriptures. They heard the Apostles writings. They heard the Living Tradition of the Church being spoken to them. Those who had access to written documents were lucky, but those who didn't heard Scriptures!

And traditions of men, as you have noted, as well as some very peculiar superstitions which were later abandoned.

Oh bbbbbb, the Early Christians did knew what was Scriptures. They were told what was by the Church. It is the same reason why you have 27 books in your NT. The Early Church decided on that and every Christian down the ages abide by that decision, regardless if they could read or not.

A minority of the clergy and virtually all of the laity did not know much, if anything, concerning the actual content of the Bible.

Some clergy were illiterate you say and unlearn in Latin? How would that prevent them from knowing the truth or learning what was Scripture?

In light of the fact that the scriptures were only available in the Latin Vulgate, illiteracy in Latin certainly prevented one from knowing what was in scripture, would you not agree?

A) Not all Christians were illiterate and it depends who (Jewish Christians or Gentiles) and the place you are talking about.

A very tiny minority were literate and they were typically found in monastic communities and as the Renaissance dawned, among the ruling classes, as well.

B) Are you saying these people that were illiterate did not have the truth because they heard Scriptures instead of reading it? Until the 4th century there were disagreements on what was the canon of the NT, but books like the four Gospels were universally accepted as Scriptures and guess what? All Christians, whether literate or not, heard the Gospels during Divine Liturgy on Sundays and other days. Illiteracy didn't prevent them from the knowing the truth. St. Paul said God gave gifts to men to teach others, and that exactly what the Church did! If you were ask a Christian in the Church of Antioch in 4th century if Sirach was Scriptures they will say yes because they heard St. John Chrysostom or any other bishops or priest teaching them from this book as Scripture.

You know as well as I do that only portions of the Bible are read during the mass and the entire Bible is never read on an annual basis. In fact, very little of the deutercanonical books are used on Sundays. Today most Catholics attend mass weekly, at best, or more often on Christmas and Easter. The exposure to the Bible is really limited.

C) What about the Early Fathers and Mothers of the Church for 1,500 years? They were the most educated people alive during there time and God used them to Shepard his flock.

It can be debated that there were Early Mothers of the Church, much less that God used them to Shepherd his flock. That issue aside, although they were the most educated people alive during their time does not prove anything one way or the other. I could say the Mohammed was the most educated Arab of his time (which is probably true) but that does not make anything he said or wrote to be accurate, does it?

I am fulminating against those who do not accept them. I am against those who are against them for fallacy reasons. I know a few ProYou wrote that they are no quotation or references to these books in the NT (I prove you wrong above). This doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I commend your diligence in research in response to my position and will not further argue with you on that point. I, like most Protestants who have taken the time to read them, am not against them, per se. I do not accept them as being the inspired word of God and see no particular reason one should accept them. Name one teaching in them that sets apart Christians today, please.

Also, I doubt the majority of Catholics have no idea of the Bible. They are read Scriptures during every Mass. Most probably are not "scholars and historians" but at least they hear Scriptures, just like the Apostolic era. Most probably do not know they are any debate concerning these books but they hear it during Mass as Scriptures. What is your basis that the Majority of Catholics do not know about this or that they have no idea about the Bible? Are they supportive evidence to suggest such a thing or is this your personal bias against the Roman Catholic Church?

The majority of Catholics have a vague idea of the Bible. They know what it is and the fact that it is considered to be the Word of God. However, most have never read it themselve nor are inclined to do so after generations in which reading the Bible by the laity was forbidden by the Church. Many Catholics I have personally spoken with do not even know that the Bible contains the Old Testament and the New Testament nor what a book of the Bible is.

I know that there is a telephone directory for Los Angeles. I have never read it for myself. I don't even own one. The fact that I know it exists hardly fits me to be a telephone directory operator for Los Angeles. If someone were to tell me that the Los Angeles telephone number for Jane Schmedgorowicz is (487) 398-7982 I would have no reason to doubt them, especially if they told me that they alone possessed the directory and I should trust them that they are telling me the truth. However, if I managed to get a directory and discovered that there was no such person listed in the directory, much less that number for the person, I would have serious reservations about the veracity of the person who told me that information.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

I am glad that Martin Luther who determined which books he wanted in his canon, didn't removed the other books he wanted to remove. He fought hard to remove them, but wasn't successful
Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
BTW in his German tranlation of the Bible those four books were put into an appendix because he felt them not on the same footing as the rest of the New Testament.

He especially did not like James calling it an epistle of straw.


The books that were removed from the Old Testament and the books in the New Testament that he tried to remove, didn't jive with his view of Christianity.

There is alot of information online about this subject. You can decide for yourself after some thoughtful research.

Peace and blessings,
Neriah

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

Firstly St. John was specifically talking about the book of Revelation.
Even though I think we can apply it to the all the books.

But the bible didn't exist when he wrote Revalation, and the book was clearly written about Rome anyway.

Is there any particular reason, then, that none the seven letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3 were addressed to Rome if, in fact, this was "clearly written about Rome anyway"?