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

Tradition | 03-06-2022 | CharlesOconnell

[oldbill]

See if your Klan buddy has another hood and sheet, you bigot.

[metmom]

You are the best advertisement going for why someone would choose to not become a Catholic.

[kinsman redeemer]

...such a poor understanding of Scripture.

...such a poor understanding of Christian purpose.

..,such a poor interpretation of James.

Sad really.

Oh! Well.

[af_vet_1981]

Texas_Guy: Nope, read the sheep and goats passage in Matthew. People are condemned by their actions and lack of actions.

kinsman redeemer:
...such a poor understanding of Scripture.
...such a poor understanding of Christian purpose.
..,such a poor interpretation of James.
Sad really.

I don't think so; there is certainly a union of faith and works; if one actually reads the Gospels it is evident that the Messiah taught it very strongly.

Notice that Matthew's twenty fifth chapter is not in the other gospels. The first two teachings are for his servants and the crux is not faith, but works. There is no need to search for hidden meanings, like the oil representing the Holy Spirit. These were simple teachings to simple people commensurate with the culture. The third teaching is for all, and is still not about faith, but works by which all shall be judged. Just believe Jesus and do the works for his sake.

• 25 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
• 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
• 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
• 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
• 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
• 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
• 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
• 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
• 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
• 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
• 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
• 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
• 13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
• 14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
• 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
• 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
• 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
• 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
• 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
• 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
• 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
• 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
• 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
• 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
• 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
• 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
• 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
• 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
• 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
• 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
• 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
• 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
• 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
• 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
• 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
• 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
• 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
• 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
• 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
• 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
• 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
• 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
• 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
• 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
• 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[MurphsLaw]

Doesn’t mean they were ever saved to begin with. If someone shared the gospel with them and they refused it, they would qualify.

  Doesn’t mean they were not saved either, does it?
  But we don’t even have to quibble about what the “Sacred Command that was passed on to them has to mean”.
Let’s just go with your “not saved” theory then.
So, “It would have been better for them not to have known…” if they were “just” unsaved people then, on the periphery,  
think how MUCH MORE WORSE would it be then for those who ARE actually saved then, or for those who claim to be saved - if they were to turn their backs on the “Sacred command while saved?
Sounds to me like it would be even worse,  double bad then…as the consequence would seem to increase then proportional to the level of belief of the one turning their back will see.
So saved or unsaved- the warning is real. That's my take on that.

  Biden and pelosi were baptized into Catholicism as infants, exercising no conscious decision of commitment to Christ by an act of their own volition. It was imposed on them without their consent or choice, and with no ability to exercise their own saving faith. Salvation therefore could not be confirmed to them by anyone because that bishop did not know their hearts.

  Are you saying an act of ones "own volition" is required to be saved?
That sounds like I have to do something.... then. which sounds like a work... no ?

Also… if you say infants, unable make “conscious” decisions, are disqualified from saving themselves, and also those who present themselves then “”consciously” to the Bishop for the Confirmation of the Holy Spirit are also disqualified from being saved as well… who can be saved then in your plan?

  That’s a “Heads” – You win !...
”Tales” - I lose !... Not fair…

  The Truth is, Justification is a Free Gift gift, freely given...
by saying we have to have conscious assent – that an infant does not have- then it must be necessary to wait until I can feel that, I'm ready and that " I that I do now merit this now...” by “accepting” Jesus as a teenager or whenever.
 
The beauty of Infant baptism is that it is all pure gift. In a similar way, as our human lives are given to us as a free gift... it's a life we could not ask for, a life we had no decision in whatsoever.

And in the same way we can lose...or kill... our human life God has freely given us, and so too can we harm the regenerated new life we were given at Baptism.

    Since ceremonies and rituals do not save anyone, one cannot presume they lost their salvation because there is no evidence they were ever saved to begin with. 

Now we're getting somewhere.
Could you please outline what you consider - or what that standard is - for knowing WHAT that "Evidence" exactly is to qualify one to be saved???..(or to prove one was "ever saved to begin with, as you say)

[MurphsLaw]

Are you asking a mere human to judge these two on the condition of their souls?

Based on how one adheres to their professed claoms to Christianity...absolutely.
Otherwise, are you now suggesting mere humans are incapable of judging the souls of other humans or themselves? Is that what you believe?
I dont think there is anything "mere" about that process at all... do you?

Throughout his life, David - a man after GOD's own heart, was always killing one enemy or another.
Will we see him in heaven?

You will for sure, and why not?
Now realize his Covenant with God came much earlier than Jesus, so he had a different set of rules to run witb... and being of the Chosen people and all that, God would certainly spare his natural branch, for sure.
Think of it this way, as such of a Chosen elect like that, very similar- or forerunner of- in a pre-Calvinist way, he had no free- will to avoid those bad things he did-
So he was pre-destined to commit them in the first place, not culpable.
And even still, David would express remorse and sorrow, begging God's mercy...
Unlike the 2 unrepentant knuckleheads I cited, who are very culpable in the New Covenant...

[MurphsLaw]

Why is it do hard for you to admit you were wrong to pop- off on Tobit the way you did?
Maybe pre-DSS or 1940s theology could have gotten away with that- but no more... but Tobit as an inspired and admittedly fictional writing was in fact part of the readings of Jews, not just at Qumran, but throughout the region.

That it was rejected by post temple Jews, undoubtedly in opposition to this new Christology sweeping the world, that should give one a modicum of pause to decide which view you should align your beliefs with.
The early Church scholarship... or the guys that killed Jesus.
The poison of Luther.

Some cut and paste into- can't remember now from where... but some ingo to educate you beyond your bias and your surrendering to biblical objectivity.

Here are the answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.
People don't talk much about the deuterocanon these days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics — who usually don't know their Bibles very well and, therefore, don't know much about the deuterocanonical books, and Protestants — who may know their Bibles a bit better, though their Bibles don't have the deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don't know anything about them either- sans 1212.
With the stage thus set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it's no wonder most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of particle weapon recently perfected by the Pentagon.

The deuterocanon (ie. "second canon") is a set of seven books — Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term "apocrypha."
This group of books is called "deuterocanonical" not (as some imagine) because they are a "second rate" or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various myths. Let's explore the five most common of these myths and see how to respond to them.

Myth 1

The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.

The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond.
Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there."

This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on.

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.
For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God.
This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"?
Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture.
That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture — the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions."
This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

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. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

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.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted."
Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews — though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh.
In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done.
So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st 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.

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

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.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

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. And more than once, 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."
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. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods'? If he called them Ôgods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken — what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?"
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.
In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) — as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself.
We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

Myth 3

The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired Scripture.

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it.

) 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. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head that comes off).
And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors" happen.

Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. 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. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men.
These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it.
Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here.
This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

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, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional.
He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time.
This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses.
They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth — if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along.
When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?"
And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

Myth 4

The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book important and that, "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages."
Likewise, the editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."

That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all seven books and not just these two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture." Several things can be said in response to this argument.

First, is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures?
No. For example, one may as well say that St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born abnormally" or as being the "chief of sinners" (he mentions this in the present, not past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless.

Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't remember whom he baptized.
Using the "It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)?

1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that his teaching was inspired or not.
Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament, simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.

Why not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as "direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author.
Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't remember whom he had baptized.

To tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can tell the truth about themselves — that they think writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they are not sure they've done a terrific job — without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what they wrote.
This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.

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. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops.
This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition.
This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape — which included the deuterocanonical books — by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon.
And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books.
Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: 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."

Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Preface to James' Epistle).
Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came.
As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter.
The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.

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, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been.

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth.
That's history.

[metmom]

The fruit of the Spirit, IOW, the character of Christ being lived out in one’s life.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

And Jesus said this…..

John 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

If you’re looking for a list of works and rituals and ceremonies, that isn’t going to cut it. Law keeping is no evidence of salvation. Even the pharisees kept the law, even perfectly, to the letter, as Paul did, and it is worthless towards being saved.

Galatians 3:1-6 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

Galatians 3:10-11 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

And Jesus had this to say about works.
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Law keeping does not save anyone because that is not the purpose of the Law. The Law wasn’t given to make people righteous by following it. It was given to expose sin and show us our need for Christ, that we might come to Him and throw ourselves on the mercy of the court, so to speak, and find mercy and forgiveness for the sin we could never pay for ourselves.

And since the wages of sin is death, any other payment given to try to apprehend forgiveness is not going to work. All the righteous deeds in the world, all the Law keeping, all the rituals, etc, cannot pay for sin because they are the wrong form of payment.

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Only Jesus’ blood can cleanse sin. Works can’t obtain it nor maintain it.

[Luircin]

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.

[Elsie]

I have a Book that the Catholics assembled for me, and it reads:

It is way above my pay grade to figure out what state a soul is in at the moment of death.

If I were a forgiving person; I might have to invent a place where souls can go - to get a second chance at redeeming themselves.

[Elsie]

So he was pre-destined to commit them in the first place, not culpable.

This bait sure LOOKS good. I wonder what it tastes like??

[Elsie]

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth.

 

That's history.

 

 

 

Gotta love history.

 

When it's highly editted - not so much.

---

---

---

 

 

 

 

 

Apocrypha

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word 'apocrypha' means 'hidden.' Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)

Books of the Apocrypha

• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Ecclesiasticus
• Baruch
• Letter of Jeremiah
• Prayer of Azariah
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

[Elsie]

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

 

 

 

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been.

 

 

 

"The Prots are mean to us" mantra is getting old on FR.

[Luircin]

Gotta love it when statements are phrased not to pursue truth, but to make Roman Catholics feel smug about themselves.

[MurphsLaw]

Since ceremonies and rituals do not save anyone,...

Are you sure about that?
Absolutely sure... like your Faith life depends on it???
I thought about you as this scripture reading popped up in Mass today, ironically...

From Jonah:

6 Then tidings reached the king of Nin′eveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he made proclamation and published through Nin′eveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, or drink water,
8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightily to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands.
9 Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?”

10 When GOD SAW WHAT THEY DID, how they turned from their evil way,
God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them;
and he DID NOT do it.

Rituals... can't live with them, can't live without them ?

[daniel1212]

" Why is it do hard for you to admit you were wrong to pop- off on Tobit the way you did?"

So having utterly failed to establish Tobit as Scripture with your fallacious illogic being exposed you now resort to a psychological tactic, which is once more begging the question. Rather than my "pop- off on Tobit" as being a fable and not Scripture being wrong then it had only been shown to be justified.

"Some cut and paste into- can't remember now from where... but some ingo to educate you beyond your bias and your surrendering to biblical objectivity."

Rather than biblical objectivity you post a tome of unattributed (but from https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html) biased poorly substantiated polemical propaganda which is a poor substitute for interacting with what refutes false claims and arguments in it, and thus it hardly warrants spending time doing so again. And rather than me just posting my tome again on this basically dead thread - much of which has already been posted to you and more but you simply post the same propaganda again - instead I will simply provide the link to it again and which contrary evidence you and your secret source can deal with.

[MurphsLaw]

Martin Luther is your go to? yikes...

The same guy that wanted to toss - but knew he could not - Hebrews, James, and Revelation - and whatever else did not fit his ideology?

History, edits.... indeed...

[MurphsLaw]

So having utterly failed to establish Tobit as Scripture

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...

Scripture? Who gets to decide? Show me in the Bible where that list of Contents is...

Even Jerome was found to be wrong on Tobit by the DSS... and the Councils of the Church in the 4th and 5th century deemed Tobit as Scripture...

Who gets to decide? You ? Martin Luther...
Look it up- EVEN - yep - Martin Luther “freely quoted” from Sirach and Tobit against his Catholic opponents in 1518, and did so in a way that proves he considered both of these books canonical...(Gary Michuta)

Who gets to decide? Post - Resurrection Rabbinical Judaism? Really? They reject the scriptural basis for their Chanuka- and that seems like a normal process to you?
Who gets to decide what is Scripture?

Polycarp quotes Tobit 4:10 (To the Philippians2).
The Shepherd of Hermas may quote from Tobit’s teaching about
laying up alms for the future—though he could also be quoting from the gospel of Luke (Similitude 1).
Clement of Alexandria quotes Tobit 4:16 as “the scripture”
(Stromata 2.23.139; see also the references at 1.21.123 and 6.12.102).

Another secret website to evidence:

EvidenceUnseen.com

[MurphsLaw]

Are you judging me then ?

I just want answers that lead to the Trth not away from;
plain and simple - not deflection and diatribe.

You tell me I am wrong. Good. Show me the evidence.
Not supposition or assumption... you show me evidence based on the same standards you require of me..
I asked you months ago to show me where in the Bible-- it says the Bible is that sole rule of Faith- or whatever definition it has now- and where Jesus says that it is...

It is written... yeah sure...

[MurphsLaw]

It is way above my pay grade to figure out what state a soul is in at the moment of death.
,br> And I would agree.

I'm just asking then...where is the guarantee and security in someone being able to figure out the state of their own soul at the moment of death...