Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Salvation
The article tells when the deuterocanonical were adopted. Did you read it?

I did.

They left this out.

367 AD. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was the first to list all 27 books of the NT to be read in a church service.

And at the Council of Trent in 1546, in a hissy fit, the catholic church, ignoring all of this, included the apocrypha as "canon" in spite of Jerome not according them the same status as the OT.

18 posted on 12/05/2014 7:56:18 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: ealgeone
367 AD. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was the first to list all 27 books of the NT to be read in a church service.

Too bad St. Athanasius included Baruch in his canon. Where's yours?

And at the Council of Trent in 1546, in a hissy fit, the catholic church, ignoring all of this, included the apocrypha as "canon" in spite of Jerome not according them the same status as the OT.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

1,000 years before Trent.

As for St. Jerome? He does not belong to the protestants:

"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]

31 posted on 12/05/2014 8:29:28 PM PST by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ealgeone

They were in the Catholic bibles from the beginning and were not ex post facto included after the CofT as you state.

Whereas your protestant brethern deleted the deuterocanonicals after the Lambeth Conferences in teh early 1920.

Now those D-C are scarce as hens teeth in modern protestant bibles.

It is precensoring pure and simple by your protestant brethren.

AMDG


111 posted on 12/06/2014 4:05:06 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GODs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson