Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

When people leave it to what they think the Spirit is guiding them, then they just potentially add to the thousands of various interpretations. Again, see here.

So all answers are found in the Bible? Please show us where the Bible says that "all answers are in the Bible". It is, in fact, an impossibility since "the Bible" was did not even exist when the writers of what we call The New Testament were writing.

The Bible, in fact, teaches otherwise: See here. That is a fact that anyone can read for himself in the Bible.

I both agree and disagre on your last statement. Yes, we agree that the fullness of God's special revelation to mankind is in Christ, but anyone who reads the Bible cover to cover must also agree: The Bible is not (and cannot be because even it says so) the sole rule of faith for a follower of Christ. See here.

In case you have not or will not read the "see here" links, let me clarify from "your" Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as "the Bible alone".

---

Well, the bible prophesying about the changes of the set times and laws and the Catholic church fulfilling the prophesy doesn't seem to interest you at all huh? You just want to sort of change people's taught with what you think is right rather than what God think is right. How can you say that the bible alone is not enough? The bible alone is the way of salvation. Not what others have to say. Because the reliable man qualified to teach others is the one whom teaches straight from the bible.

Mat 15:3
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
But their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.


The teachings passed down were the teachings of Christ which came from the bible and himself. Not teachings taugh by men. Did the apostles ever refer to any other books other than the bible? What did they teach? Passover or communion? Sabbath or Sunday worship? It is not me with whom you disagree with for I am only using God's judgment. Follow God and brake your own concepts please. Take care, and I hope the Spirit and the bride open your spiritual eyes to understand the bible from a spiritual point of view rather than physical. Have a nice one! God Bless You!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

Not to offend you Catholics out there but, the church has a long and colorful history of this sort of thing and many others. I belong to no organised religion simply because I get really bad "vibes" from all of them. The thing is I beleive that the Catholic Church is really a cover for evil and that Satan has his throne somewhere in the Vatican. If you look at Mexico, where people are starving, they are told to have more children since it is a blessing from GOD. Now 99 percent of Mexicans there are starving and coming to America. Why does the Catholic church turn it's back on them and not help them? At least the Mormans will give you something to eat! Carl Marx predicted that America would be a Spanish speaking country in the future...much to the delight of the Catholic church! The Catholic church is trying to populate the world with Catholics just as the Mormon church is trying to populate the world with Mormons! You may hate my opinion and even hate me personally for my opinion but I know for a fact that the leaders of these organisations are doing more harm to the world and the people of it than they are doing good. The longer they can keep us brainwashed the longer they will sit on high suppressing anything they do not want us to know and telling us anything that keeps us docile. There is only ONE TRUTH in the entire universe and that truth is inside each and every one of us. Untill we find that and come together as a complete community on our own and for the good of all, these tyrants will keep this world just as it is today...one big mess!:mad:

---

Indeed, you are correct according to the bible. Just think about it. God specifically tells us not to worship idols because it shows him hate and makes him jealous?

Ex 20:4

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

But isn't that what they are famous for? Their virgin Mary's and saint this and saint that. According to God saints are those whom obey his commandments, not brake them:)

Where are you located?

So no cross in your church, will?

Much of what you say goes against even most Protestant groups. What group are you with? Let me guess: none. Your own interpretation of it all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

So no cross in your church, will?

Much of what you say goes against even most Protestant groups. What group are you with? Let me guess: none. Your own interpretation of it all?

---

Have I added my interpretation or have I quoted the bible every time? I do not belong to a protestant group for they also keep Sunday worship, which they got from the mother church.
I am not a 7th day adventist either for they keep 6th & 7th Day instead of just the 7th day holy.

No cross at my church, no idols whatsoever. Some churches have a cross and claim "it's not an idol, we don't worship it"
Let's see what God has to say:

Jer 10
Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.

2 This is what the LORD says:


"Do not learn the ways of the nations
Or be terrified by signs in the sky,
Though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
They cut a tree out of the forest,
And a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. (Idols)

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
They fasten it with hammer and nails
So it will not totter. (Idols)

5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, (Jesus on cross idol)
Their idols cannot speak;
They must be carried
Because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
They can do no harm
Nor can they do any good."


Think about it. God said "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch" Isn't the scarecrow figure the same as when Jesus was on the cross? No Difference!
The saints in the vatican, aren't they full of gold and silver to make them valuable? Aren't they made out out of wood as well, and also carried?

Why you guys insist that it's my interpretation when it's clearly the word of God? Why can't you just believe what God says? I am not here to argue.
It's up to you to believe Christ, NOT ME! like many others in this website trying to add their own teaching. Can man save another man? No way! Only
God can give eternal life.

Maybe we should throw out the parts of Scripture, then, that talk of the value of apostolic tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

...and insert the parts you wish were in there, like how Christ told the apostles to write a Bible - and that the Bible is the sole authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Maybe we should throw out the parts of Scripture, then, that talk of the value of apostolic tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

...and insert the parts you wish were in there, like how Christ told the apostles to write a Bible - and that the Bible is the sole authority.

---

It's ironic you completely ignore the entire idolatry issue among other things that through the scriptures I have mentioned like Sabbath and Passover. You want to keep jumping from one thing to another because you want to show people what you think, not what God thinks. So sad.

Jude

"In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them."

for example... what day of the week is the 7th day? everyone will say right away "Sunday", but actually when you look in a dictionary, it's Saturday:) Even through history we can understand that Constantine the founder of the Catholic Church was the one that made of these changes in AD325 Nice Council. Want proof? I think since you are such faithful Catholic are aware of these facts. When I ask, "Did Jesus celebrate communion" right away "Yes" but yet, you will not even find the word communion in the bible, how come? Because Jesus celebrated the Passover and went to church on Saturdays (Sabbath Day). They know by instinct not by the word of God which is the only truth. With that I conclude all I had to say.

I am not Catholic, but on the point of Sabbath keeping, Will, I suggest you re-read Paul's letter to the Galatians. The whole point of that letter was that the Galatians, having begun in faith had started to try to be perfect by keeping the law. Paul flatly states that if you keep one point of the Law, you must keep ALL points of the Law. If you think keeping the Sabbath, or Passover will save you, then know that no one was justified by keeping the Law. Read Galatians again, keeping in mind that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Excellent points galveston.

Will, I am no expert on Bible Prophecy... and in a group of people who claim to be there will be so many differences in what it means.

All who read the same Bible (and I am happy to use whatever version you use) will come up with different meanings...

So lets look at where we agree:
1. The New Testament is the group of books that we agree were written by Christians who were inspired by God - and those writings are without error right?

... then I ask you Who Says these books are Scripture? Nowhere in these writings are these writings identified as Scripture, so we must accept someone's judgment. Who's judgment are you trusting that they are Scripture?

I find it interesting that you accept this Canon that was agreed upon by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago.

2. Who were good Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. centuries?

Can you point me to a Christian teacher of the 2nd century onward who I might read to learn more about this version of Christianity that you espouse?

Great points again Rick!

Will144-

I greatly respect your zeal and love for God. I just think the premise for witch you interpret the Bible is flawed.

You say we can only go by God's word, witch is in the Bible, not by what man says. However, every book in the Bible does not say it is the word of God. Therefore would it be unbiblical to say the Bible is the word of God? For me that just doesn't reason. I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Church said it was at the council of Carthage.

I would also add that the information you are receiving concerning history is greatly incorrect. “Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church.” What? That's like saying Benjamin Franklin was the first President of the USA. I think it would be a good idea to cross check your info with more than one source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

Great points again Rick!

Will144-

I greatly respect your zeal and love for God. I just think the premise for witch you interpret the Bible is flawed.

You say we can only go by God's word, witch is in the Bible, not by what man says. However, each and every book in the Bible does not say it is the word of God. Therefore would it be unbiblical to say the Bible is the word of God? For me that just doesn't reason. I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Church said it was at the council of Carthage.

I would also add that the information you are receiving concerning history is greatly incorrect. “Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church.” What? That's like saying Benjamin Franklin was the first President of the USA. I think it would be a good idea to cross check your info with more than one source.

---

If you have a secretary and you tell her to type a letter. Who signs it? You or the secretary? Who's word is it? The secretary's or yours? Who approves it, the secretary or you? Who's the boss? The secretary or you? And if she does not follow what you told her to do, won't you fire her? In the same way, the bible was written by people approved by God. The creator has control over the creatures, don't you think? What these men wrote in the bible is approved by God most High! It is God's word because the Spirit told them what to write, it's not their own interpretation or prophesies. So if the church says to you "Commit suicide and you will go to heaven" you will do so as well I suppose? That is the problem with people, they follow what churches and different religions say rather than the very word of God. It is so sad with this generations. No wonder God chose the foolish of the world to embarrass the wise, and the weak to destroy the strong, because people believe they have salvation by following their own ideas and churches rather than the bible itself which is the very word of God!

Who was the first pope? Wasn't it your father Constantine who gave himself the title of Pontifex Maximus for the papacy and was a High Priest for the Sun God rather than God's? And changed all the laws of God by coming up with his own which is something that now people follow (Sunday worship, christmas, the list goes on) instead of Sabbath and Passover? Even the churches that call themselves christian churches, did they not brake off from the Catholic Church and kept the same teachings? Like one of your cardinals wrote in a book "it's like a boy running away from home but still keeping a picture of his mother" You claim that by grace you'll be saved, then how do you explain Mat 7:21-22? Clearly, there is a God's will that we need to follow which is Sabbath and Passover rather than man-made traditions. Even the apostles kept the Sabbath. Of course they had God's grace, that is because they followed the commandments of God. How can you dare saying the only reason you believe the word of God is the bible is because a church said so? I will pray to God to enlightens your path and enable you to understand the humble way of Jesus Christ. You have heard the truth, it is up to you whether to believe it or not. God Bless all of you. I did not come on this forum to argue but to make things more clear through the word of God, but obviously you think it is my own teachings rather than Christ's. It is not my teachings that you reject but God's, for I cannot teach anything and I have no wisdom; but God can surely show me how to do these things.

One last thing, I find it ironic the Catholic Church calls priests "Father" when Jesus clearly said:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

But yet you call your priests father? Obviously you have a physical father and even to them you say "dad" rather than father. How can you call someone else a father who isn't God?

God Bless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Who was the first pope? Wasn't it your father Constantine who gave himself the title of Pontifex Maximus for the papacy and was a High Priest for the Sun God rather than God's?

---

I can clearly see that we differ on so many doctrines. I do not want to argue over that either. This debate could go on for ever. I would still point out; however, Constantine was not the first pope. I know you won’t accept that Peter was the first pope, but Constantine was absolutely not the first pope. If you like you can read about him at this site.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

May the love of Christ be with you:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Excellent points galveston.

Will, I am no expert on Bible Prophecy...and in a group of people who claim to be there will be so many differences in what it means.

All who read the same Bible (and I am happy to use whatever version you use) will come up with different meanings...

So lets look at where we agree:
1. The New Testament is the group of books that we agree were written by Christians who were inspired by God - and those writings are without error right?

...then I ask you Who Says these books are Scripture? Nowhere in these writings are these writings identified as Scripture, so we must accept someone's judgment. Who's judgment are you trusting that they are Scripture?

I find it interesting that you accept this Canon that was agreed upon by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago.

2. Who were good Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. centuries?

Can you point me to a Christian teacher of the 2nd century onward who I might read to learn more about this version of Christianity that you espouse?

---

Not in disagreement with you, but just to point out:
2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

In this passage, Peter calls Paul's writings scripture, so we have at least one occurrence of something in the N.T. being called "scripture".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Have I added my interpretation or have I quoted the bible every time? I do not belong to a protestant group for they also keep Sunday worship, which they got from the mother church.
I am not a 7th day adventist either for they keep 6th & 7th Day instead of just the 7th day holy.

no cross at my church, no idols whatsoever. Some churches have a cross and claim "it's not an idol, we don't worship it"
Let's see what God has to say:

Jer 10
Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.

2 This is what the LORD says:


"Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. (Idols)

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter. (Idols)

5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, (Jesus on cross idol)
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good."


Think about it. God said "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch" Isn't the scarecrow figure the same as when Jesus was on the cross? No Difference!
The saints in the vatican, aren't they full of gold and silver to make them valuable? Aren't they made out out of wood as well, and also carried?

Why you guys insist that it's my interpretation when it's clearly the word of God? Why can't you just beleive what God says? I am not here to argue.
It's up to you to believe Christ, NOT ME!, like many others in this website trying to add their own teaching. Can man save another man? No way! Only
God can give eternal life.

---

Superb Will! The truth! Most are so brainwashed that they cannot see it and then the rest just go with the popular consensus so they can fit in. When one thinks for himself, he begins to see the lies that have been propagated since the year 0034! Thank you.

It's clear that we each see a little bit different of an angle on what various passages mean in the big picture.

The 2Peter reference is obscure at best. Surely we agree that it comes nowhere close to naming what they considered the body of Scripture at the time.

History shows us clearly that the canon of the NT was not solidified until about 300 years after Christ.

And by "solidified" the plain truth is that it was the Catholic Church that affirmed it.

I am happy that most Christians at least agree with this.

Even Martin Luther had to give credit where credit is due:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics, that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; furthermore, we would know nothing at all about the Bible if it were not for the Catholics" (Luther: Commentary on John)

And recognizing the damage that he had begun in seeing "denominations" popping up all over the place:

"Who called you to do things such as no man ever before?...Are you infallible?...Are you alone wise and are all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries are wrong?...Go back, go back; submit, submit. (Grisar Hartman, Luther, Herder Book Co., 1914)

So where do we go besides the prayer closet when we don't understand?

Again I ask what I ask often but rarely get an answer...

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?

I can only guess the reason that this question is not often answered is because Christ's Church was for the most part unified during that period. Anyone named during that period will be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox - and teach against the new doctrines that sprang up as a result of so many grabbing onto Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic Church COULD be evil. All kinds of things could be all kinds of things, but what is the point of COULDING?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?

---

A body has to be hard nosed and/or ignorant not to give credit where it is due. Millions of Catholics in your time frame made significant and durable contributions to the well being of humanity. How can anyone engaging in Christian conversation not know that?

Just to mention a few...

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), the Master theologian of the Catholic Church. Thomas saw salvation as a cooperative effort between God and sinners.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), whose work on the atonement laid the foundation for the Reformation.

The Venerable Bede (672-735)

St. Augustine of Canterbury (597-604)

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090?-1153)

Thomas à Kempis (1380-1471)

Yes, they can... and they do every day. Just look at all of the garbage in this thread.

There are just too many Anti's out there that are more interested in bashing someone for what they THINK they believe then digging into history and reality to see that the differences are far less than they realized.

Let's all try some Ecumenical Apologetics instead of judging others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

It's clear that we each see a little bit different of an angle on what various passages mean in the big picture.

The 2Peter reference is obscure at best. Surely we agree that it comes nowhere close to naming what they considered the body of Scripture at the time.

History shows us clearly that the canon of the NT was not solidified until about 300 years after Christ.

And by "solidified" the plain truth is that it was the Catholic Church that affirmed it.

I am happy that most Christians at least agree with this.

Even Martin Luther had to give credit where credit is due:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics, that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; furthermore, we would know nothing at all about the Bible if it were not for the Catholics" (Luther: Commentary on John)

and recognizing the damage that he had begun in seeing "denominations" popping up all over the place:

"Who called you to do things such as no man ever before?...Are you infallible?...Are you alone wise and are all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries are wrong?...Go back, go back; submit, submit. (Grisar Hartman, Luther, Herder Book Co., 1914)

So where do we go besides the prayer closet when we don't understand?

Again I ask what I ask often but rarely get an answer...

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?

I can only guess the reason that this question is not often answered is because Christ's Church was for the most part unified during that period. Anyone named during that period will be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox - and teach against the new doctrines that sprang up as a result of so many grabbing onto Sola Scriptura.

---

The Old Testament was canonized by the Jews. The thirty-nine books which it contains today were not all canonized at one time, but they became canonical (or holy scripture) gradually as the people accepted each of them as authoritative. By the time that Christ came into the world, most of them were completely canonized and all of them were regarded with high respect, alhtough they were not then collected into one book.

However, it was not until the end of the first century A. D. and beginning of the second that Jewish councils met and officially sanctioned the canonization of these books. In the words of Dr. George L. Robinson:

According to certain traditions preserved in the Mishna, two councils of Jewish rabbis were held in 90 and 118 A. D., respectively, at Jabne, or Jamnia, not far south of Joppa, near the Mediterranean coast, at which the books of the Old Testament, notably Ecclesiastes and Canticles, were discussed and their canonicity ratified… . In these councils the canon was formally and officially restricted to our thirty-nine books. It is, therefore, possible that at Jamnia the limits of the Hebrew canon were officially and finally determined by Jewish authority; not, however, that official sanction created public opinion, but rather only confirmed it.

Catholics accept a "larger canon of scripture" than most Protestants, namely, the apocryphal books in addition to the thirty-nine in our Old Testament. These seven books deal with Jewish history and doctrine written between the Old and New Testaments. In this "larger canon" there are seven complete books and portions of two others in addition to the "smaller canon."

These books are:

Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch,
First and Second Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther and to Daniel.

When Jerome translated the Hebrew scriptures into Latin about 400 A. D. he translated these extra books. They were not accepted immediately by the Catholic Church, however, as holy scripture but as time passed they gradually won universal approval. The final and absolute seal of the Catholic Church was placed upon the apocryphal books at two councils, one held in the fifteenth century and the other in the sixteenth.

At the Council of Florence (1442), however, a new step was taken in the direction of their [apocryphal books] canonization, when "Eugenius IV, with the approval of the Fathers of that august assembly, declared all the books found in the Latin Bibles then in use to be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, without distinguishing them into classes or categories." Though this bull of Pope Eugenius IV did not deal with the canonicity of the apocryphal books, it did proclaim their inspiration; so that men ever afterwards were able to claim that all of the books of the Old Testament, the apocryphal as well as the canonical were equally inspired. Nevertheless, down to the Council of Trent (1546), the apocryphal books possessed only inferior canonical authority; and when men spoke of canonical scripture in the strict sense, these were not included… .

Accordingly, the Council of Trent … decreed at their fourth sitting, April 8, 1546, that the apocryphal books were equal in authority and canonical value to the other books of sacred Scripture.

The Apocrypha was included in the early editions of the King James Version of the Bible, but later editions omitted it. Finally, after the Protestant Reformation had been consummated, the Protestant churches rejected the Apocrypha as scripture and accepted the size of the Old Testament canon as thirty-nine books, the exact books that the Jews had canonized back near the time of the days of the Lord.

Even at this late date, although the canon has been officially closed since Jamnia, fresh moves to have recent discoveriers accorded the same respect and inspiration as the older books, and the restoring to canonisation of some that were rejected by earlier decisions, are pressing for the canon to be opened to admit other writings and Logias. Who would object that that?

M:)

Excellent material, Morganite... but I will add:

There is much debate over this.

Many do not know that 85% of the quotes of Scripture in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the "deuterocanonical" books. These "extra" books were there long before Jerome.

The apostles were quoting from Scripture that did contain them.

Many agree that at Jamnia the deuterocanonicals were thrown out to further separate themselves from the Jews who followed Christ.

Entire volumes have been written on this issue, so I cannot do justice to it here, and at the same time I realize that it is not a key point for justification of including the deuterocanonicals as Scripture, but I think it worth pointing out.

PS. Missing from the above is what the Church in general accepted long before Florence.

Tobit, Judith, et al were accepted by Christians by about 300AD.