Yes, but they reflected the accepted unchallenged till the Reformation truth. No Bibles were produced without the disputed books. In the East, where Trent did not have jurisdiction, likewise, the conmplete canon has been in use continually.
The chapter in James 2 is not speaking of eternal salvation at all
This is your opinion, and you are wrong. "Dead" (James 2:20, 26) is dead for eternity.
both Athanasius and Jerome (to name just two) rejected Old Testament books that were not written in Hebrew
Still their opinions were not such because they were following Jamnia. Again, show me a Bible that did not have the disputed books prior to Luther.
not private in the sense that they are my 'opinions'.
Point is, I don't care what they are -- they are not the teaching of any apostolic authority. I am here to explain what the Catholic Church teaches, and to explain why.
Christ never even uses the term Mother for Mary, and when she comes to get Him, with His brethren, He refuses to leave and doesn't even go to her. (Mat.12:46-50)
Jesus calls His mother "woman", apparently, to indicate her significance in the light of Genesis 3:15. The episode of Matthew 12 tells us that Jesus chose to be with His church rather than with His immediate family; He urged others to do the same (Luke 9:61-62).
The passage does not say that doing good works result in eternal life, it says, those who seek eternal life by doing good works will find it.
OK...
his good works did not save him, he had to receive the Gospel by faith to be saved.
Indeed, we are not saved by works alone, just like we are not saved by faith alone.
Nowhere is eternal damnation mentioned, only physical death.
I explained that. You are wrong: physical death is only mentioned at the end of the chapter in a simile: "even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead". Dead faith is eternal damnation.
Abraham was saved in Gen.15, not Gen.22
Do you contradict St. James or not? St. James says that Abraham was "justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar ... faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect". This is exactly what the Church teaches: faith co-operates with works and together are necessary for salvation.
No one disagrees that faith can be increased by works
Ah. Well, that is just barely Catholic then. You still incorrectly insist that all works are swept aside by St. Paul when the scripture does not say so. They are works for reward of one kind or another that he talks about.
you do not understand the Baptist view of Sanctification.
Yawn. Probably not.
Know what. You just babble on with your old arguments from roughly that point in your post on. I got more interesting stuff to do. You have a question, ask. Ciao, peace be with you.
Until Trent, those books were viewed even by many RCC theologians as secondarly works, not equal to scripture.
The chapter in James 2 is not speaking of eternal salvation at all This is your opinion, and you are wrong. "Dead" (James 2:20, 26) is dead for eternity.
And where do you see eternity spoken about anywhere in the passage?
That is your opinion and it doesn't fit the scriptures.
both Athanasius and Jerome (to name just two) rejected Old Testament books that were not written in Hebrew
Still their opinions were not such because they were following Jamnia. Again, show me a Bible that did not have the disputed books prior to Luther.
Other reasons for non-inclusion are numerous. Even early Catholic Church leaders who were familiar with the Hebrew texts clearly distinguish Canonical and Apocrypha writings. The writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, and Bishop Melito of Sardis (170 A.D.) indicate a recognition of the difference between inspired Holy text and the Apocrypha. Church leaders such as Origen, Tertullian, and Hilary of Poitiersand Hilary of Poitiers, exclude the Apocrypha from Sacred canon by their count of books. As stated, the Apocrypha was never even declared authoritative scripture by the Catholic Church itself until the council of Trent some fifteen hundred years after Christ established the Church. And despite some catholic objections, and claims that these were always part of canon, the facts speak for themselves. This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
And so we see this idea that these books were always part of Holy canon is totally unfounded. And in agreement with the consent of the fathers, and of scholarly examination, Protestants likewise reject the apocryphal books as canonical. The question is, can men make uninspired text, God inspired Canon, simply by proclaiming it so at a council in 1546? The answer is no.
http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html
not private in the sense that they are my 'opinions'.
Point is, I don't care what they are -- they are not the teaching of any apostolic authority. I am here to explain what the Catholic Church teaches, and to explain why.
Oh, I thought you were here to tell us what the scripture says, not to avoid it with Church dogma.
Your own Catholic Bible (NAB) refutes your use for 1Cor.3:13 and purgatory.
Christ never even uses the term Mother for Mary, and when she comes to get Him, with His brethren, He refuses to leave and doesn't even go to her. (Mat.12:46-50)
Jesus calls His mother "woman", apparently, to indicate her significance in the light of Genesis 3:15. The episode of Matthew 12 tells us that Jesus chose to be with His church rather than with His immediate family; He urged others to do the same (Luke 9:61-62).
Yes and that included the 'Queen of heaven' herself!
Imagine ignoring Mary that way!
I thought she had a special relationship with Him!
The passage does not say that doing good works result in eternal life, it says, those who seek eternal life by doing good works will find it.
OK...
his good works did not save him, he had to receive the Gospel by faith to be saved.
Indeed, we are not saved by works alone, just like we are not saved by faith alone.
No, works do not show at all regarding salvation anywhere.
Works show up as a result of salvation.
Nowhere is eternal damnation mentioned, only physical death.
I explained that. You are wrong: physical death is only mentioned at the end of the chapter in a simile: "even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead". Dead faith is eternal damnation.
No, you tried to explain it away.
Nowhere is eternal life spoken of at all in James 2, what is spoken of is showing ones faith by works, not being saved by faith and works, which Paul says is impossible.
Abraham was saved in Gen.15, not Gen.22
Do you contradict St. James or not? St. James says that Abraham was "justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar ... faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect". This is exactly what the Church teaches: faith co-operates with works and together are necessary for salvation.
No, it is you is contridicting St.Paul by denying what he clearly says regarding faith and works, they are antithetical in regards to salvation, because salvation is by grace, therefore it must be by faith (Rom.4:17).
Abraham's justification was his proof that he was indeed a 'Friend of God' by his actions, but his faith preceded that action, it did not add to it (Heb.11:17)
No one disagrees that faith can be increased by works
Ah. Well, that is just barely Catholic then. You still incorrectly insist that all works are swept aside by St. Paul when the scripture does not say so. They are works for reward of one kind or another that he talks about.
All works are swept aside regarding salvation, but works show ones faith in one's Christian walk.
A work is a result of a strong faith and as one faith increases he sees it bear fruit which in turn increases his faith in the scriptures that he is trusting in. (we walk by faith, not by sight)
you do not understand the Baptist view of Sanctification.
Yawn. Probably not.
Well, then you do not understand the true Biblical view of sanctification and 'you err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.'
Know what. You just babble on with your old arguments from roughly that point in your post on. I got more interesting stuff to do. You have a question, ask. Ciao, peace be with you.
And you just go on rejecting what is clearly written in scriptures, preferring the darkness to the light.