Catholics Don't Believe You Can Earn Your Way to Heaven

And since the wages of sin is death, any other payment given to try to apprehend forgiveness is not going to work.

No, there are no "other payments" of forgiveness other than confession AND penance.

Conversely though, The wages of sin ARE NOT DEATH if I am saved in your way and sin has no consequence for me any further.
If works prove nothing toward Salvation - then they also cannot contribute to one's damnation as well- so as the man said... you are free to sin, sin away..

If sin was so unimportant for our salvation- why would The New Testament spend TWICE as much ink talking about sin than it does Salvation.

It is not right to think one is saved once and for all... immune from sin...
Christ has said otherwise...

Bold words from a man who has refused to read anything more than a few sentences that I’ve posted, answering your demands over and over.

Care to learn how I know this?

Often when I make an argument post to you, I put in words that don’t belong in the middle of it and point them out, so that you can tell me the words in your reply, just to prove you made it that far.

You’ve never, ever done so.

You can lead a Catholic to Scripture, but you can’t make him think, I guess.

You didn’t even read more than a few words of metmom’s post.

Why should anyone care what you have to say if you’re not going to actually engage?

So you seriously think that your works of confession and penance will earn you salvation?

"That’s a lot of words. Pity they’re crammed full of logical fallacies, and thus worthless to a rational debate. Kinda sad that whoever wrote them wasted so much time in a finite life begging the question"

Indeed, and seeing as refutations of such are typically ignored and the same propaganda is posted again, as is the case here, then I should not take much more time does so (took me about 4 hours even with pasting from previous work).

" Myth 1 The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. "

Which is a bare assertion, and in contrast is such scholarly judgments as (shown before),

J. N. D. Kelly states, For the Jews of Palestine the limits of the canon (the term is Christian, and was not used in Judaism) were rigidly fixed; they drew a sharp line of demarca- tion between the books which 'defiled the hands', i.e. were sacred, and other religiously edifying writings. The oudook of the Jewish communities outside Palestine tended to be much more elastic. (J. N. D. KELLY, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, FOURTH EDITION, ADAM & CHARLES BLACK LONDON, p. 53 )

The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only enumerates 22 books of Scripture - though according to Jerome, a minority of of Jewish opinion counts them as 24 (Gallagher and Meade: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity) which 4 Ezra does - which is seen to reflect the Jewish Palestinian canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, (which divides some books Jews referred to as single works).

"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)

Luke 11:51 (also Matt. 23:35): "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah." With these words Jesus confirms his witness to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Abel was the first martyr recorded in Scripture (Gen. 4:8) and Zechariah the last mar-tyr to be named in the Hebrew Old Testament order, having been stoned while prophesying to the people "in the court of the house of the LORD." (2 Chr. 24:21). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and Chronicles the last. Jesus, then, was basically saying, "from Genesis to Chronicles," or, according to our order, "from Genesis to Malachi," thereby confirming the divine authority and inspiration of the entire Hebrew canon. (Bruce, BP, 88)

Philo "Around the time of Christ, the Jewish philosopher Philo made a three-fold distinction in the Old Testament speaking of the '[1] laws and [2) oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and [3) psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety (De Vita Contemplativa 3.25)." (Geisler and Nix, BFGU, 103)

Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)

In 1 Maccabees 14:41 we read of Simon who is made leader and priest "until a trustworthy prophet should rise," and earlier he speaks of the sorrow in Israel such "as there has not been since the prophets ceased to appear to them." "The prophets have fallen asleep," complains the writer of 2 Baruch (85:3). Books that were written after the prophetic period had closed were thought of as lying outside the realm of Holy Scripture. (Ewen, FATMT, 70)

Bruce affirms that The books of the Hebrew Bible are traditionally twenty-four in number, arranged in three divisions." (Metzger, CS, 29) The three divisions are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Here are the main categories of the Hebrew canon found in modern editions of the Jewish Old Testament.

The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century BC onward were convinced that "the voice of God had ceased to speak directly." (David Ewert, FATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without proph-ets, there can be no scriptural revelation. (Some above text transcribed from "Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World," By Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, pp. 34-36)

Thus we have scholarly testimony that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ (as manifest by the Lord's frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself - Luke 24:27, and which writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church), this being the Palestinian canon held to by those who sat in the seat of Moses (cf. Mt. 23:2) and which Christ is understood as referring to as in "all the Scriptures," "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms," the scriptures. (Luke 24:27,44-45)

And even in Catholicism it is affirmed : “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

"In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point."

Andy who parrots this has done little research. As shown before.

Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. W. M. Christie was the first to dispute this popular theory in 1925.[23] Jack P. Lewis wrote a critique of the popular consensus in 1964.[24] Raymond E. Brown largely supported Lewis in his review,[25] as did Lewis' discussion of the topic in 1992's Anchor Bible Dictionary.[26] Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[27] Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty.[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon#Council_of_Jamnia

Note that professor emeritus (UTS) Raymond E. Brown is one of Rome's own scholars, twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

"But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. ..The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles."

Fail again, since as shown you before:

the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha., for while Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and which contained all thwhile Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Also, Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)

Addressing the theory that the first century Septuagint contained the the apocryphal books, we have such scholarly testimony as the below:

The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.

However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin.

An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the NT. Also, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the or rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees.

Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt," yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, ex-cluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. Mulder, M. J. (1988). (Mikra: text, translation, reading, and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Phil.: Van Gorcum. p. 81 )

Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,

these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

" Myth 2"

"This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical."

As with all his other ducks, this one is also unattributed, and is essentially a invalid strawman, being an argument did not make. And I actually argued to the contrary of "Quotation Equals Canonicity" in post 95 of this very thread. Thus is argument against straw man has no place here.

"The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ÔI am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43). "Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25." "Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7." "Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind.""

Which attempted argument is superfluous, since if as I myself argued, even actual quotations do not by themselves establish such as being Scripture, much less do claims of "references" and which are almost always more precisely allusions, and sometimes also correspond to the Hebrew Scriptures (as is the case with Matthew 27:43 and Psalms 22:7-8 and more closely so) . As shown here regarding the above texts. However, only those from the Hebrew canonical books are referred to as Scripture, "it is written," or "God said."

"Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8."

And which proves what? That Maccabees is a historical book is not in dispute, nor of Hanukkah, and that the Lord would go to this feast to preach/evangelize, being a public traditional event , even as Himself as being the perfect Temple (and it is held that the Lord was not actually in the holy place of prayer in the Temple itself where the priest ministered - and the Gk. word translated "in" here can mean at, or among - but "in Solomon's porch," a porch on the eastern side of the Temple's Outer Court, cf. Acts 3:11; 5:12), does not translate into a historical book being Scripture. Recognizing a sanctified significant place or event mentioned in a book no more necessarily makes that source to be Scripture than recognizing a Truth or even a prophecy in source as Paul did in Acts 17:29 and Jude does in Jude 1:14,15.,

"Myth 3 First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. "..The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion. For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography,"

A logical fallacy of equating two different genres thus the analogy fails. Parables are set forth as such, and in which real names are never used (Lk. 16:19-33 is not a parable). Judith is set forth as a historical book, which invokes real names and places as such (In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve, the great city; in the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane, And built in Ecbatane walls round about of stones hewn three cubits broad and six cubits long, and made the height of the wall seventy cubits, and the breadth thereof fifty cubits," (Judith 1:1-2) and which invalidates that record as being the word of God.

"

"the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. " Glad he agrees, but the problem is that it also is set for as a historical book, which invokes real names and places as such ("The book of the words of Tobit, son of Tobiel, the son of Ananiel, the son of Aduel, the son of Gabael, of the seed of Asael, of the tribe of Nephthali; Who in the time of Enemessar king of the Assyrians was led captive out of Thisbe, which is at the right hand of that city, which is called properly Nephthali in Galilee above Aser." (Tobit 1:1-2)

Myth 4... Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition "

Once again the author is employing an unattributed argument I did not and would not and need not make. Thus it is superfluous. " Myth 5 The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent." First, no Church Father is infallible. ... Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions."

Yet he attacks Luther as if his judgment on the canon was not his expressed, non-binding private opinion, which it was, and setting the canon for Protestantism, which it did not.

" St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "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 (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't 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]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches.""

It is argued that Jerome later accepted the apocrypha due to him later translating them and including them in his Latin Vulgate, but what he translated with certainty only includes a couple (Tobit and Judith), and which was due to a request in the later case and (likely) pressure in both, and which he could allow due to some Catholic sanction. Regarding Judith he states, “But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request.” And as regards Tobit: “But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.” These do not reflect his own judgment on them as inspired Scripture, but that of a church yet in flux as regards the status of all the apocrypha. Some think Jerome later defended the apocrypha based on comments about Daniel, but which is countered here

not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,

Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

J. N. D. Kelly finds,

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine."Kelly, [J. N. D. (1960). Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco, USA: Harper. p. 55.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states,

An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

"And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon."

Actually as the Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century up towards the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

" The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books.. we get much more than we bargained for. For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. "

So? Just as the author said private opinions do not set a canon, neither did Luther for Prots. Who was still too Catholic as well.

"The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers,"

Begging the question alert. Which is a wheelbarrow of propaganda the author can only wish was proven and not countered by the testimony to the Palestinian Canon, and as is even affirmed in Catholicism,

the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

Confession is NOT a payment for sin.

Penance is not payment for sin, but rather is a Catholic construct to make people feel like they are doing something positive to procure salvation. We can’t. We can do nothing to add to the finished work of Christ on the cross.

If His sacrifice is adequate, then we can add nothing to it to complete it or enhance it.

If His sacrifice needs our involvement by works, then it wasn’t adequate in and of itself. And if the work of the sinless Son of God is not enough to save someone, then no sin stained and corrupted works of ours added to it can help.

Is there something about a guarantee of our inheritance that you do not understand? The Holy Spirit is our deposit, GUARANTEEING our inheritance, God’s words not ours.

If he said it, I am not going to call Him a liar and argue against it. I will simply trust what He said to be the case.

"There you go again... Master of deflection... Your misunderstanding was NOT about whether it was "deemed" scripture by whomever.. your point that I refuted was that it was not "believed" back in the day- and that the author clearly notes it is Fiction...like a parable.. You said no one believed Tobit... and I simply reminded you of the prominence of that writing in the Essene community..."

Rather, as with your pasted unattributed polemic, unlike me, you fail to document what you can only imagine you have or are refuting, and instead of my contending "no one believed Tobit" and that you "simply reminded" me "of the prominence of that writing in the Essene community," what I said was ""As if one should believe such a fantastic tale," - NOT "no one believed Tobit!"

And in response, you argued there were actually 5 copies of "Tobit" found in the Qumran deposit of Sacred Writings used by the Essenes...what is not debatable for you is that the The Jewish sect of Essenes DID believe "such fantastic tales" (as you say) as sacred scripture."

Therefore once again in deflection, contrary to your claim that you simply reminded me of the prominence of that writing in the Essene community, you argued that they DID believe such fantastic tales as this.

Next, after I exposed the logic behind your "Scripture by association" logic, came your first misrepresentation of what I said, which is that "You were wrong to suggest that no one could believe Tobit in Christ’s day" which is a clear misconstruance of what I said,. turning "as if anyone should believe" into "should believe," which is like saying "no one should believe "The Book of Mormon" means that "no one believes" that work. And which is an absurd presumption on your part that I would deny anyone believed Tobit since I have clearly attested to Catholics believing in that book as Scripture. For which documented misconstruance you could apologize.

And after arguing for Tobit by saying "The Jewish sect of Essenes DID believe "such fantastic tales" (as you say) as sacred scripture" based upon some of the company it was found with, you proceed to say "They thought something of that book then to be sure," which status is not at issue. Then you resort to the old nonsense that since your church said this was Scripture than so it is, which is as absurd as your church saying that what it likewise defines is Truth, including the very premise that she defines herself as possessing this ensured veracity.

"Who gets to decide what is Scripture?"

Since it is indisputable that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ (as manifest by the Lord's frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself - Luke 24:27, and which writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church), therefore the answer to the question is not so much who but how. Which is by the same means by which the church began, with souls rightly discerning men as being of God even though their historically valid magisterium did not, which discernment was essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation (even though John - and "all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed:" Mark 11:32 did no miracles, unlike the norm). Likewise the establishment of writings of God was/is due to the same. Which consensus of the faithful church councils are to affirm, but that does not infer nor require ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere promised nor exampled, nor is it how God preserved Truth.

And the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Meanwhile, i do not see your conrades practicing the official RC alternative to veracity being based upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as so many self-professed "true Catholics" as dissent from their "living magisterium," which they sit in judgment on based upon what the decide is historical RC teaching and its meaning, versus basic historical papal requirements (which obviously must be open to interpretation:

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14) /p>

Are you sure about that? Absolutely sure... like your Faith life depends on it???

Rituals to not make spiritual reality happen.

Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Nothing can earn salvation.

Call it merit or whatever, it’s all the same concept.

You have to do some act or work to receive God’s forgiveness, at which point, it is no longer forgiveness. It is payment rendered for deeds performed.

Forgiveness by its very nature comes with no strings attached. It is a gift, freely given by the giver. Nobody ever pays for a gift. Nobody earns a gift or it ceases being a gift.

To offer to pay someone for a gift is an insult to the person giving it.

Martin Luther is your go to? yikes...

You keep bringing him up; not me.

He was a CATHOLIC I believe.

You tell me I am wrong.

Golly; I wonder WHY?

...where is the guarantee and security in someone being able to figure out the state of their own soul at the moment of death...

In that Book I keep referring to.

Martin read it and came away a changed man.

No, there are no "other payments" of forgiveness other than confession AND penance.

And if you don't believe it; just ask JESUS!!!

John 6:25-40

²⁵When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

²⁶Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. ²⁷Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

²⁸Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

²⁹Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

³⁰So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? ³¹Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’^[c]”

³²Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

³⁴“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

³⁵Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. ³⁸For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ³⁹And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Catholics and your group (OSAS/unrepentant commandment [including the 7th day Sabbath] breakers) are in the same sinking ship. Yes, Salvation by faith, alone. No works are going to get you there. But, once there (converted and born again), there are things that God expects from those who profess love in Him.

1 John 2: 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

There is no such thing as OSAS. Saved by Grace and THEN live your life in unrepentant sin, treating God’s law as to no effect? Hebrews 10 tells us exactly how that will turn out…

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Claim salvation through grace AND then continue to sin (transgression of God's law...lawlessness)? AND teach others to do the same?

…and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I'm still waiting for any of you to tell me what the penalty for unrepentant sin is for a Christian who initially "believes" and is saved by grace, in the beginning of their conversion?....) (Ravi....not saying he did it, but if he did), when ALL of you say OSAS guarantees you passage into heaven, despite the constantly repeated statement that there is no requirement to keep God's law after grace?

Just a few less jewels in your crown, or you get put in a small condo in the corner of the the new city? ridiculous, right? So, what's the Penalty for unrepentant sinners if everyone who was once saved, is still saved?

The question is stupid, because only God knows the heart. You don’t even know if such people even exist.

But the motives of many people who ask such dumb questions isn’t truth, but rather feeling smug.

The question is stupid, because only God knows the heart. You don’t even know if such people even exist.

Of course only God knows the heart. I’m not saying anything to the contrary. “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts”...see below.

Clearly, such people do exist. Paul warns us in Hebrews 10.

Solomon in Ecclesiastes 12
13When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man. 14For God will bring every deed into judgment, along with every hidden thing, whether good or evil.

And Paul again in 1 Corinthians 4
4My conscience is clear, but that does not vindicate me. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

Plenty of Christians live double lives. Christians like RAVI ZACHARIAS.

If Ravi did it (Rape, Adultery, embezzlement, etc... and I’m not saying he did it), and if he didn’t confess his sins and repent before he died, HE’S ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

And if he did it and was unrepentant, according to the likes of Metmom, Boatbums, and Mhgintn, HE’S STILL GOING TO HEAVEN. Get it?

My point is that once saved, always saved, is a lie and unrepentant PREVIOUSLY SAVED Christians who commit sins (unrepentant), will not be in heaven.

If, if, if, if.

Can YOU read the minds and hearts of everyone who is inside and outside of salvation? No?

You’re proposing a hypothetical that you can’t prove even is possible and then throwing a fit because we’re not playing your hypothetical game.

But what I CAN know is that all SDAs follow the words of a proven false prophet and so are not worth listening to for any kind of theological advice.

You’re proposing a hypothetical that you can’t prove even is possible and then throwing a fit because we’re not playing your hypothetical game.

The proof is that God warns against it. That should be a simple concept that even you can understand. Well, maybe not.

You’re proposing a hypothetical that you can’t prove even is possible and then throwing a fit because we’re not playing your hypothetical game.

There’s an awful lot of that hypothetical game playing going on.

The irony is that after shredding others for allegedly judging the state of their souls, those game players then create hypotheticals and demand others judge the state of some fabricated other person’s soul.

Such hypocrisy.

What is the penalty for unrepentant sin?