A locally-owned and managed commercial bank headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska.

Performs commercial banking operations, mortgage banking and other related financial activities.

A locally-owned and managed commercial bank headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska.

Performs commercial banking operations, mortgage banking and other related financial activities.

Areas easily accessible in Southcentral Alaska, photographs, information, lists of supplies, links to regulations.

Areas easily accessible in Southcentral Alaska, photographs, information, lists of supplies, links to regulations.

In article <091.01.13.05.623140000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
>
>
>adamst@no.spam wrote:
>
>> No Bart, you miss the point - the Septuagint contained those books,
>> and that canon was passed on and used continuously by the church. You
>> err in how you understand the following:
>
>Rather, I don't think you've drawn a certain distinction.
>There "canonize" and then there's "canonize". You know that
>the books in the NT have a ranking

Do they? I thought you were paying enough attention in this NG to notice that
not all agree.

> (Gospels at the top,
>Paul's letters next,...then Hebrews and James at the bottom.)

And _this_ ranking is VERY Lutheran. Certainly the Orthodox would only agree
with your ranking the Gospels at the top. When you rank James at the bottom, you
are reflecting Luther's bizarre condemnation of Scripture,when he called James
"an epistle of straw".

>We read James as informed by John, and not vv.

Again, a very Lutheran way of reading the NT.

>The ranking
>proceed through non-canonical books.

And again, the way the ranking is done differs. Not all share the Lutheran
ranking.

>A council can't really decide on or choose a canon.

Why not?

>It can only recognize books which are God's Word.

Did you notice that the councils dod not agree even with each other when they do
this?

>The fact that the Apocrypha
>appear in LXX says nothing about a canon. What does speak
>to it, is the fact that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles
>quote from the Apocrypha.

But this is not true. They _do_ quote from them. Many of us have now seen how
James quoted from the Book of Enoch. Some of us also know how Paul quotes from
the Wisdom of Sirach, and less directly from the Wisdom of Solomon.

>There's a _reason_ these books are called "deuterocanonical".
>(Because they are not part of the first canon.)
>
>> This is Jerome's personal opinion,
>
>Which was shared by Origen and (later) Augustine.

Shared by Origen, yes, but even later Augustine did not share Origen's
deplorable attitude to the deuterocanonicals. He just recognized that they rank
lower than the proto-canonicals. Not the same thing at all.

>>>The Reformation began in 1516. The Council of Trent didn't
>>>canonize the Apocryph until 1546.
>>
>> What Trent did matters only to the Romans. But even so, Trent was
>> forced to state that the books were canonical, BECAUSE they were
>> being challenged by the Reformers. Rome didn't change her practices,
>> she simply stated "de jure" what had been "de facto." See above.