Having read this thread, and the works cited, I find Fr. Chuck and De Maria to be consistently on target and truthful. I'm sorry, but I find TJ3 consistently disingenuous, especially in the matter of the book Sirach.

What got me started on this question was - if the book only made it into the canon with the Council of Trent, why in the world did Luther, who was prior to that Council, find it necessary to delete it from the canon? Apparently, the canon and the entire Catholic Canon was "re-canonized", so to speak, at Trent in reaction to Luther. TJ3's position was a half-truth and very misleading. For ALL the details, go to De Maria's post and click on his blue link. I think it's on Page 3. I would re-link it myself but I don't know how to do it.

I don't much care whose Church is better than whose Church, but, in this "debate", De Maria, for the most part, backs up his positions with pretty specific references and good logic while TJ3 tends to the ad hominem.

Anyway, thank you both. It has been most interesting reading.

Well I think the early A.D. Hebrew tradition just tossed out Sirach because they wanted nothing to do with that upstart troublemaker Jesus. Same as the other books titled Maccabees that were wqritten by Judas, I mean the Book of Jesus and the Book of Judas would just have caused trouble. Have you read about how God's name, called the tetragrammaton since it is 4 Hebrew characters was removed from the ChristianBibles too when they were written in Greek and Latin, replaced with the word "Lord" because people were mixing up the unfamiliar Hebrew letters with Greek letters, they thought God's name was "Pippi" like Pippi Longstocking... so when the Reformation happened and the Protestant denominations split off, if they wanted to make copies of the Bible from the original texts the Catholic Church had those in it's possession. So they maybe had to use less reliable sources. Just my thought. Even the apostles had a problem with division, some would say I belong to Paul, others would say I belong to Peter. And the apostles themselves debated about who among them was the most important. Christ told them the first shall be last, more important to serve than to seek status

De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!

Hope that finally got your attention.:D
Third request:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

---

Both.

I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise... Tradition without Scripture is WORTHLESS (not to mention logically impossible).

Hoping you'd clear this up for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?


So, if you can provide the evidence that Jesus wrote a Scripture, please show me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Do you beleive in the Trinity?

If so then I offer the answer of The Spirit of Truth

John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 19:13 And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

Warning

Galatians 1: 9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Not of Man

Galations 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Paul proclaims the gospel was the revelation of Christ

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ


Paul speaks of His previous error.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I find TJ3 consistently disingenuous, especially in the matter of the book Sirach.

---

I've read it - have you? Perhaps if itself of using personal attacks, if you have chosen to discuss it, we could examine what it says in contrast to scripture. But choosing to attack first and never addressing the point speaks loudly.

Quote:

---

What got me started on this question was - if the book only made it into the canon with the Council of Trent, why in the world did Luther, who was prior to that Council, find it necessary to delete it from the canon?

---

Strawman - Luther did not delete it.

I find it interesting how much power you attribute to Luther - you appear to suggest that this one man could singlehandly alter the Bible for the entire Christian Church! Wow! The suggestion is in and of itself laughable, and certainly lack historical credibility. I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.

I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.


This is an excellent example of how you play loosely with the truth. I re-read the entire thread to find the reference and YOU NEVER MADE SUCH A REFERENCE. On page 3 you simply referred to "one of the Catholic Encyclopedias" without ever stating which one. That is NOT a reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Do you beleive in the Trinity?

If so then I offer the answer of The Spirit of Truth

John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 19:13 And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

Warning

Galatians 1: 9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Not of Man

Galations 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Paul proclaims the gospel was the revelation of Christ

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ


Paul speaks of His previous error.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

---

None of these depict Jesus telling the Apostles to write.

And the verses in the OP explicitly depict Jesus telling the Apostles to teach, to baptize and to pass on other Traditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.


This is an excellent example of how you play loosely with the truth. I re-read the entire thread to find the reference and YOU NEVER MADE SUCH A REFERENCE. On page 3 you simply referred to "one of the Catholic Encyclopedias" without ever stating which one. That is NOT a reference.

---

You clearly have not been on the board long enough. Maybe you should make sure of your facts first.

Seems to me that your intent on here is to attack that which disagrees with you rather than seeking truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

None of these depict Jesus telling the Apostles to write.

And the verses in the OP explicitly depict Jesus telling the Apostles to teach, to baptize and to pass on other Traditions.

---

I noticed that when I have specific commands from God to write down what He said, and in the NT testament, a specific command from Jesus to write down what He said, the Roman Catholic response was to toss those commands aside as not meaning what they explicitly said.

Clearly there is no value in discussing scripture with you if you will just redefine it to be whatever you want it to be.

Thread closed, attacks on Faith not discussion of ideas.