Hi, a few questions

For those who are interested in my background, this is a link to my first post in the not catholic religions forum, there they answered some of my questions.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=22740

After surfing throu this message board a little bit more I realised that probably this is the better place for asking.

so, here I go


1)Ive been reading and it seems that a baptism performed by a christian priest who is not roman catholic, if done properly, with water and in the name of the father son and holy spirit, is valid.
but the eucharist, even if the not catholic priest believes in the real presence aint valid, because there is no apostolic succession.
why does that happen?

  1. Is St Agustin’s way of interpreting revelations the only valid way of interpreting the book for catholics?

  2. which ones are the deuterocanonical books?, what does deuterocanonical mean?
    I was told that Luther removed those books because the jews did not have those books, and that was the oldT that jesus had, and that he or the apostles never quoted those books, whats the catholic answer to that?

  3. When Paul says that drunk people, and homosexuals, and effeminates will not inherit heaven, what does effeminate precisely mean?

Here someone effeminate is someone who doesnt like football (what americans know as soccer) and prefers art or books, I dont think pauls means that :stuck_out_tongue:

well, thats all

I am waiting for your answers

  1. any christian person, not just a minister, can baptise. as long as the trinitarian ‘formula’ is used, it doesn’t matter if the person baptising is a priest or a minister at all.

as far as why the eucharist isn’t valid outside of apostolic succession, i don’t know. i look fwd to reading the answer by someone more knowledgable.

  1. what do you mean by augustine’s method of interpretation?

  2. the deuterocanonical books are those left out of the primary canon (what we know as sacred scripture) for various reasons, and the word means ‘second canon’. they are, according to the church, not authoritative as scripture and Tradition are, but are useful for reading and inspiration.

  3. what version are you using? i’ve never heard ‘effeminate’ listed among those sins. i’m pretty sure that ‘not liking soccer’ doesn’t exclude you from heaven. it may, however, cause you to enjoy it less. :slight_smile:

[quote=jeffreedy789]1)
3) the deuterocanonical books are those left out of the primary canon (what we know as sacred scripture) for various reasons, and the word means ‘second canon’. they are, according to the church, not authoritative as scripture and Tradition are, but are useful for reading and inspiration.

  1. what version are you using? i’ve never heard ‘effeminate’ listed among those sins. i’m pretty sure that ‘not liking soccer’ doesn’t exclude you from heaven. it may, however, cause you to enjoy it less. :slight_smile:
    [/quote]

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

I don’t believe your desription of the deuterocanonical books is accurate, I would check out the above link I got from another thread.

This is a New American Standard translation
He’s quoting from 1 Corinthians 6:9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

I don’t think you have to worry about not liking football apparently the Bible is speaking of male prostitutes.

[quote=Asking]—

  1. Is St Agustin’s way of interpreting revelations the only valid way of interpreting the book for catholics?

  2. which ones are the deuterocanonical books?, what does deuterocanonical mean?
    I was told that Luther removed those books because the jews did not have those books, and that was the oldT that jesus had, and that he or the apostles never quoted those books, whats the catholic answer to that?

  3. When Paul says that drunk people, and homosexuals, and effeminates will not inherit heaven, what does effeminate precisely mean?

Here someone effeminate is someone who doesnt like football (what americans know as soccer) and prefers art or books, I dont think pauls means that :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

There are a lot of great apologists in this forum, so some may be able to give you better answers than I will try to provide:

  1. The Church allows liberty of interpretation to vast amounts of Scripture. It is not mandatory to accept St. Augustine’s interpretations.

  2. The Catholic Church holds that the “Deuterocanonical books” are fully inspired scripture. Essentially, they are the books from the version of scripture known as the Septuagint in the time of Christ. Although the New Testament may not record quotations from the “Deuterocanonical” parts, scripture scholars recognize (I have heard) that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint almost all of the time.

As Christians began to accept the gospels and epistles as scripture, a Jewish council defined the Word of God to exclude those books, and in so doing they adopted a version of what we would call the Old Testament that did not include the Deuterocanonical books. This was one of the reasons that Luther rejected those books.

  1. The reference to “effeminite” is in I Cor. 6:9-10, but the Church has no fixed interpretation of this passage. Certainly, it would be wrong to import some modern understanding of the word into the first century. “Effeminite” essentially means a man behaving like a woman, and that does not mean being artistic or not being sports minded.

[quote=Asking]4) When Paul says that drunk people, and homosexuals, and effeminates will not inherit heaven, what does effeminate precisely mean?

Here someone effeminate is someone who doesnt like football (what americans know as soccer) and prefers art or books, I dont think pauls means that :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

I did a little search on the Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia and found an entry at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_definition_of_effeminacy

which includes the reflection of the great Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, on what St. Paul meant by “effeminate.” St. Thomas wrote that effeminacy meant lacking perseverance because of an unwillingness to endure toil and difficulty:

“perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy . . …”

Asking,
I wil give it a try.

  1. Baptism is a sacrament. Holy Eucharist is a sacrament also, but the priest has to consecrate the host. Could someone help me here?

  2. St Augustine is probably the greatest theologian in history but he is not infallable. Many other theologians have made major contributions also. The Church has infallibly defined only a very few passages of Scripture.

  3. You have good answers on this already.

  4. Good question.

Thanks

[quote=jeffreedy789]as far as why the eucharist isn’t valid outside of apostolic succession, i don’t know. i look fwd to reading the answer by someone more knowledgable.

[/quote]

Short and sweet:

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that “no one but the priest sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament”.

newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

In other words, no apostolic succession, no keys…no keys, no ordination according to the sacrament of Holy Orders…no ordination, no power to consecrate the host.

It should be noted that the Jewish canon wasn’t decided until the Council of Jamnia around the year 90AD. The Jews of the council seemed to have favored texts written in Hebrew. Recent scholarship however shows that many of the Greek scripture versions are closer to the original texts. Finds such as scriptures discovered along with the Dead Sea Scrolls shed light in this area of research.

The early Church used the Septuagint, which was in use by the Jews of the time and contained books of the Old Testament and what is now known as the deuterocanonical scriptures. These texts were written in Greek because the Jews because of historical occupations then spoke that language and some did not speak Hebrew.

The Septuagint, as well as, all of the Greek New Testament writings made up the Holy Scripture for early Christians.

This may help and lists the books for you though it’s very involved.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
bluffton.edu/~bergerd/deutero.html

(You didn’t start with simple questions.) :wink:
Joanna

  1. Baptism as you described is valid because it is done in a Catholic manner. The Eucharist is a sacrifice and must be offered by a priest because Jesus the High Priest offers Himself continually before the Father on our behalf. The priest is a stand-in (or alter-Christus) for Christ on earth. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation united in the Eucharist. Nowhere in the bible, Old or New Testament, is the function of sacrifice done without the priesthood, and nowhere in the bible or in the history of the Church is a deacon, priest, or bishop ordained by a lesser authority.

  2. No. There are over about 23 approaches to interpreting the bible, the Church does not dogmatically interpret the book of Revelation that I know of. Any interpretation is valid, including yours, as long as it does not conflict with Church teaching. Many Catholics make the mistake of saying we cannot interpret the bible for ourselves, when in fact we can, under that condition.

  3. This is an on-going debate. Martin Luther removed the deterocanonicals from the Bible because he felt like it. They are books not written in Hebrew, but Greek, and the Jews had a council around 95AD and rejected them because they didn’t like Greek Jews. [/font]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

  4. Paul is not talking about people who are being a certain way, but people who do things that are immoral. There is nothing wrong with being effeminate, or homosexual, but it is wrong to do homosexual things.

It should be noted that the Jewish canon wasn’t decided until the Council of Jamnia around the year 90AD. The Jews of the council seemed to have favored texts written in Hebrew. Recent scholarship however shows that many of the Greek scripture versions are closer to the original texts. Finds such as scriptures discovered along with the Dead Sea Scrolls shed light in this area of research.

The early Church used the Septuagint, which was in use by the Jews of the time. It contained books of the Old Testament and what is now known as the deuterocanonical scriptures. These texts were written in Greek because the Jews (because of historical occupations) then spoke Greek and many Jews of the time did not speak Hebrew.

The Septuagint, as well as, all of the Greek New Testament writings made up the Holy Scripture for early Christians.

This may help and lists the books for you though it’s very involved.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
bluffton.edu/~bergerd/deutero.html

(You didn’t start with simple questions.) :wink:

Joanna

[quote=kepha1]=4) Paul is not talking about people who are being a certain way, but people who do things that are immoral. There is nothing wrong with being effeminate, or homosexual, but it is wrong to do homosexual things.
[/quote]

There is something intrinsically wrong with either acting like a woman or desiring another man.

Think basic, if every single man on the face of the planet desired another man, there would still be no procreation.

I know nothing about this ‘Courage’ thing that the RC teaches, but i hope they teach ex-homosexuals to pray to God for the desire of females again.

I find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. They certainly are at fault imo, they owe society the debt of reproduction.

I am *not *their judge, but they live in a state of abomination. As scripture teaches, it is equally a sin to lust in your heart as it is in the flesh.

St. Paul recommended (or rather wished) that all men could be single and focus on God. But St. Paul also knew this wasn’t a perfect world, and most men aren’t of the caliber of St. Paul. Although he would call himself “the least…”. Anyway…

first of all, i stand corrected. i was incorrect in my assessment of the deuterocanonicals. thanks to rayne for pointing it out so diplomatically. :slight_smile:

second - jamesS posted: ’ find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. They certainly are at fault imo, they owe society the debt of reproduction.’

i strongly disagree. i know alot of people who struggle with same-sex attraction. they don’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. they just are. what they DO with that attraction is what constitutes sinful behavior or chaste, holy behavior.

‘a debt of reproduction’? where does this come from? what about those called to the priesthood? what about those called to single life? your replies sound alot more like what i heard in the protestant church than the wisdom i’ve found in the catholic church on the issue.

i understand feeling strongly on the subject. when a close friend of mine told me that she had same sex attraction, my reply (i’m ashamed to say) was to assure her that i was the most heterosexual person she would ever meet. why did i feel so threatened?

but please understand that the church teaches that having same sex attraction is not inherently sinful. ACTING on that attraction, in physical action OR MENTAL ACTION (lusting in your heart, etc) is sinful.

and we have to be careful what we call ‘behaving like a woman’. in what culture? in what way? some cultures would call anything but swearing, beer guzzling, football watching, scratching yourself in public, effeminate. we need to be clear on what is meant here, so as not to cause sensitive men to be overly self critical.

[quote=JamesS].

I know nothing about this ‘Courage’ thing that the RC teaches, but i hope they teach ex-homosexuals to pray to God for the desire of females again.

I find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. They certainly are at fault imo, they owe society the debt of reproduction.

I am *not *their judge, but they live in a state of abomination. As scripture teaches, it is equally a sin to lust in your heart as it is in the flesh.

[/quote]

First from what I understand Courage “teaches” chasity, which is something we are all called to.

Catechism Of the Catholic Church

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection

I find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. You might feel this way but that is not what the Church teaches. This debt of reproduction is rediculous as jeffreedy789 pointed out not all are called to married life.

*I am not their judge, but they live in a state of abomination *Interesting contradiction. If they are practicing homosexuals meaning they engage in homosexual sex- yes then their sin is an abomination. Just as a married person having an affair, or 2 unmarried heterosexuals engaging in sex, or one who engages in masturbation - all are sexual sins that are an abomination.

1)Ive been reading and it seems that a baptism performed by a christian priest who is not roman catholic, if done properly, with water and in the name of the father son and holy spirit, is valid.
but the eucharist, even if the not catholic priest believes in the real presence aint valid, because there is no apostolic succession.
why does that happen?

Ill take a shot at this…Based on my limited knowledge of Catholicism. The Holy Spirit moves in ways that are undefinable by man. It moves this way and that like the wind. Catholics believe the sacrament of Baptism is a visible seal with the effect of regeneration, however, it is only the ordinary means of receiving the holy spirit and GOD’s santifying grace (initiation into the new covenant). BUT, God is not confined by these means of initiation. The Holy spirit moves outside of the church also, in inordinary ways. Baptism by desire is an example. But how can one be sure of its effects? Therefore, The sacrament can be administered by any lay person by invocation of the trinity and water and recognition of what is to be received. How can man prevent what GOD has given to people of faith? This is why the sacrament can be received accordingly.
However, the eucharist is entirely different. The invocation is only valid by people with apostolic tradition and ordination by the laying of hands. I cannot invoke the spirit to transubstantiate the bread and wine into the real presence, because of the command by christ to the apostles themselves. “DO this in remeberence of me.” The Catholic priesthood is a means of christ personified in todays world. The priesthood is only valid through ordination (laying of hands). This is apostolic Tradition preserved and passed down from generation to generation. To think otherwise is to disregard apostolic Tradition. The Catholic church boldly expresses that the Tradition from the apostles STILL presides IN the Catholic church.

[quote=jeffreedy789]first of all, i stand corrected. i was incorrect in my assessment of the deuterocanonicals. thanks to rayne for pointing it out so diplomatically. :slight_smile:

second - jamesS posted: ’ find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. They certainly are at fault imo, they owe society the debt of reproduction.’

i strongly disagree. i know alot of people who struggle with same-sex attraction. they don’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. they just are. what they DO with that attraction is what constitutes sinful behavior or chaste, holy behavior.

‘a debt of reproduction’? where does this come from? what about those called to the priesthood? what about those called to single life? your replies sound alot more like what i heard in the protestant church than the wisdom i’ve found in the catholic church on the issue.

i understand feeling strongly on the subject. when a close friend of mine told me that she had same sex attraction, my reply (i’m ashamed to say) was to assure her that i was the most heterosexual person she would ever meet. why did i feel so threatened?

but please understand that the church teaches that having same sex attraction is not inherently sinful. ACTING on that attraction, in physical action OR MENTAL ACTION (lusting in your heart, etc) is sinful.

and we have to be careful what we call ‘behaving like a woman’. in what culture? in what way? some cultures would call anything but swearing, beer guzzling, football watching, scratching yourself in public, effeminate. we need to be clear on what is meant here, so as not to cause sensitive men to be overly self critical.
[/quote]

In regards to choice or birth. Scientists have come up with no *clear *evidence of any genomes in homosexuals that make them such.

On the contrary, renowned political commentator and British journalist Matthew Parris (a homosexual himself) claims it a lie when any homosexual states he was born with it, and asserts every one of them makes that choice. He would know, he lives and operates amongst the perverse.

You think it incredible for someone ashamed of a sinful lust to claim they were born with it, thus easing the guilt??

To argue that it is not inherently sinful to be attracted to the same sex is splitting hairs. What constitutes sinful desires??

If i claim i was born with the urge to murder my fellow man, does the Roman Catholic Church have a support group for me?

Continued in next post…

[quote=rayne89]First from what I understand Courage “teaches” chasity, which is something we are all called to.

Catechism Of the Catholic Church

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection

I find it a a cop-out these days to say…“they have no fault as long as they do not commit the act”. You might feel this way but that is not what the Church teaches. This debt of reproduction is rediculous as jeffreedy789 pointed out not all are called to married life.

*I am not their judge, but they live in a state of abomination *Interesting contradiction. If they are practicing homosexuals meaning they engage in homosexual sex- yes then their sin is an abomination. Just as a married person having an affair, or 2 unmarried heterosexuals engaging in sex, or one who engages in masturbation - all are sexual sins that are an abomination.
[/quote]

Continued…

You for your own personal reasons ignored my statement by St. Paul. Why? for pointless arguments sake? This is silly me having to repeat the intricacies of what St.Paul laid down in ABC’s.

St. Paul stressed that it would be *better *if *all *men could be single, and devote that singleness in unity with Christ. Note the IF please. But Paul realized this could not be, on this earth atleast.

So he advised men to marry so their hearts would not lust! The core purpose of marriage is reproduction. The others follow. Thus the debt, you see? How can you possibly take offense to this?

As far as “I am not their judge, but they live in a state of abomination” as stated by me; being contradictory, this is a straw man.

What defines ‘Judge’ to you? As the dictionary would have it in accordance with *our *subject; that being law:

“Law. To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.”

So, i say the *live *in an evident state of abomination, but where have i said they have been tried and convicted by me, and only fit for hell?? No, this God will decide.

Next time you post, refrain from subtle insults, if anything gets to me more, its haughtiness in assumption and ignorance.

I digress before you you once again accuse me of contradictions as stated in the above paragraph.

Continued in next post…

Final Post…

From **your **church leader:

St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics. (From Question “***Is Unnatural Vice the Worst Sin of all the Types of Lechery?”***)

**"*Among the unnatural vices, the LEAST serious is the sin of uncleanness which consists only in not having intercourse with another person. (ie. masturbation). The MOST serious is that of bestiality because it does not involve the right species. Thus the Gloss on Genesis “He [Joseph] accused his brothers of the worst sin” says that “They had relations with cattle”. After this comes the VICE OF SODOMY since it does not involve the right sex. After this is the sin of not using the right method of sexual intercourse–which is worse if it is not in the right place than if it relates to other aspects of the method of intercourse"

Now, several things here. Unmarried sex (between man and woman) is not even mentioned here, because it is not ‘unnatural’, it is the perversion of that which IS natural.

So we have from our forefathers stating that sex out of wedlock between man and woman is a mortal sin; St. Thomas Aquinas states this. It is a perversion of that which is inherently GOOD.

Yet a specifc section is dedicated to the WORST of sexual acts. So this ties in with Biblical accounts of sodomy being referred to as an abomination. A very different and disgusting sin in the CHURCHES and GODS eyes.

So rayne, if you maintain that these sins are all abominations, you are not only distorting your forefathers teachings, but also scripture.

If the Church’s stance is the same as yours and it is official, they speak in heresy.

Thankyou and Godbless.

[quote=JamesS]Continued…

You for your own personal reasons ignored my statement by St. Paul. Why? for pointless arguments sake? This is silly me having to repeat the intricacies of what St.Paul laid down in ABC’s.

St. Paul stressed that it would be *better *if *all *men could be single, and devote that singleness in unity with Christ. Note the IF please. But Paul realized this could not be, on this earth atleast.

So he advised men to marry so their hearts would not lust! The core purpose of marriage is reproduction. The others follow. Thus the debt, you see? How can you possibly take offense to this?

As far as “I am not their judge, but they live in a state of abomination” as stated by me; being contradictory, this is a straw man.

What defines ‘Judge’ to you? As the dictionary would have it in accordance with *our *subject; that being law:

"Law. To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case."

So, i say the *live *in an evident state of abomination, but where have i said they have been tried and convicted by me, and only fit for hell?? No, this God will decide.

Next time you post, refrain from subtle insults, if anything gets to me more, its haughtiness in assumption and ignorance.

I digress before you you once again accuse me of contradictions as stated in the above paragraph.


[/quote]

judge
[list=1]
*]To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
[/list]This is what I thought you were referring to when you used the word judge. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. I mean it does sound funny in one breath to say I’m not their judge and then in the next say a statement that sounds very definatively a judgement.

I wasn’t trying to ignore your statement from Paul. I did read it. I was a addressing your “cop out” remark with correct church teaching. And this “oweing us the debt of reproduction” I realize you say is your opinion and my opinion (I guess I should have said that) is that it is rediculous. Having children is a beautiful gift and responsibility God has given us, I agree with this. I find reducing it to a mear obligation for it’s own sake crass. If I sound insulting subtly or otherwise that wasn’t my intention.

My own opinion: I don’t think homosexuals are born that way. I believe it has to do with enviroment and traumatic experience early on. But I guess we’ve completely gotten off the main questions of this thread so I’ll stop now. Peace.

P.S. I stand corrected about the abomination thing. I believe they are all grave sins and all mortal so whether your engaged in premarital sex, homeosexual sex or masturbation you are endangering your soul. Now I’m done.:slight_smile:

[quote=Grayton]As Christians began to accept the gospels and epistles as scripture, a Jewish council defined the Word of God to exclude those books, and in so doing they adopted a version of what we would call the Old Testament that did not include the Deuterocanonical books.
[/quote]

I have learned from other posters that what I have written about a “Jewish council” is not entirely accurate. For a clearer understanding of how Jewish scholars treated scripture after the Resurrection, please read the article by Steve Ray at:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Thanks so much for taking the time to ask some REALLY good questions. It’s great to hear from someone in Argentina~ :blessyou:

[quote=Asking]1)Ive been reading and it seems that a baptism performed by a christian priest who is not roman catholic, if done properly, with water and in the name of the father son and holy spirit, is valid.
but the eucharist, even if the not catholic priest believes in the real presence aint valid, because there is no apostolic succession.
why does that happen?
[/quote]

I think the Orthodox on the other thread you were on, and others on this thread as well answered this one pretty well. Maybe this quote from * Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD * will help:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). What “Catholic” Means

[quote=Asking]which ones are the deuterocanonical books?, what does deuterocanonical mean?
[/quote]

The books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics, Baruch, and two books of Maccabees, as well of sections Esther (10:4 to 16:24)and Daniel(3:24-90 and chapters 13&14) Deuterocanonical simply means later added to the canon.

Now the question is; when were the other books added~ The Septuagint translation (of the Old Testament) was the accepted Greek Bible of the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere for well over a hundred years before Jesus’ birth. Both Jews and Christians accepted it as their Bible for over half a century after the Ascension as well. Its canon (list of included books) is not in doubt. The Septuagint included the seven books of the Apocrypha (Deutocanonical) on equal standing with the rest of the inspired Old Testament. There is no doubt that Jesus and his contemporaries all used the Septuagint.

My friend, I hope these answers will help along with the ones others have posted.

First: Using this rational~ The Jews also did not have ANY of the New Testament either.

2nd: Who says that Jesus or Apostles never quoted from those books~ After all the Bible says in** 2 Thes2:15** “to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter”. Also, at the end of Gospel of John (Jn 20:30), it says that “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which were not written in this book”.

3rd: Here is a quote from Karl Keatings book Catholicism vs. Fundamentalism ** pg 131 ~ "Luther was of course relying on his doctrine of salvation by faith alone”, and page 132 “Luther rejected the deutero-canonical books and passages largely because they conflicted with his theological practices”. ~ 2Macc 12:46-** Praying for the dead (ie:Purgatory)~ “Luther even spoke disparagingly about some New Testament books, such as James 2:14-17, but he was unable to find a rationale for removing it from the canon.”

I hope these help some; there are people who are much more knowledgeable than me who will do a much better job. Good luck “Asking” on your searching. You have an interesting background on the other thread and I hope the best for you and your girlfriend.

Good luck and God Bless,
Lance*

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.