[jo kus]

There is nothing that supports the contention of the Dueterocanonicals except Trent 1500 years after the fact.

A bit of an overstatement...

The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.

From Catholic Encyclopedia "Canon of the Old Testament"

Fact is, this argument on the Dueterocanonicals is nothing more than a joke IMHO.

Perhaps you are right. Actually, any religious conversation here should be a joke to you, since you apparently believe that some are elected for heaven and others are elected for hell before they are born without regard to their lives and can do nothing to change that - so what's the point of all of this, anyway? What's your reason for even entering into these conversations? A person is "saved" no matter what they think about God, salvation, Jesus Christ or the Deuterocanonicals anyways....

Regards

[HarleyD]

The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382.

Almost 350 years after the death of Christ and about 300 years from most of the early church fathers. That would essentially be like me saying I know what reading material George Washington felt was inspired by God. And, I have more access to information then they did back in 382AD. The Gentile fathers might have thought some or all of the Dueterocanonicals were inspired but certainly not the early Hebrew fathers.

Do you think the Latin Vulgate is full of Hebrew errors? Do you think it was constructed on erroreous text?

Actually, any religious conversation here should be a joke to you, since you apparently believe that some are elected for heaven and others are elected for hell before they are born without regard to their lives and can do nothing to change that - so what's the point of all of this, anyway?

The point is that we are told to do so and it's a matter of obedience; much like we're commanded to correct our brothers when they are in error knowing full well that God must give understanding and they may not see the truth. It's terribly frustrating but I'm sure God has a divine purpose in all of this.

BTW-Why pray for the salvation of anyone, if they have the right to choose if God will not override their will? Is the hand of the Lord so short that He cannot save? In the end God no longer is all powerful