Official site for the state of Oregon. Includes links to county and city pages, business, government, education, and Oregon facts.

State agency index.

adamst@no.spam wrote:

> The
> books of the OT that Protestants call "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical"
> are accepted by the vast majority of Christians in the world, Roman
> Catholic & Orthodox. The books were removed by the radical reformers.

Again, I correct the bad history.

Here's a quote from Jerome (340-420):

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does
not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the
authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

--Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

The Reformation began in 1516. The Council of Trent didn't
canonize the Apocryph until 1546.

So, for probably not the last time, _the books were not "removed
by radical reformers"_. Rather, the books were elevated by
the RC at a later date.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <147.13.17.05.958550000@srcbs.org>, dell12345 says...
>
>
>
>you may want to read Gal 3:10-13

I think you missed the OP's point. Sure, these verses say Christ _did_ die for
us, to free us from the condemnation for our sins, but it doesn't say He _had_
to do this. It doesn't even say why dying is what saves us. Much less does it
say Christ had to save us.

This is why it is better to refer the OP to St. Athanasius, even if the online
translation is so tiresome to read. For the assiduous reader, the brilliance of
the saint will shine through the rags of the annoying translation.


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Stephen Adams wrote:

>As notted, Here's the exchange between 'skw' (a JW) and me:

It's too long to read and I don't see the point. Also, I don't know him
and I'm not 'skw' but if you want to re-open the discussion I'd be
happy for you and I to discuss this afresh. You can't decide that
because another alleged JW didn't seem convincing that "Jws" have a
faulty position. There's a lot of material in which to draw. Perhaps
this "skw" didn't have all the facts.

So, what's your argument that the trinity existed prior to the 3rd
Century (you will alos notice that I've never said "before Nicea"!!!!!.
I've said the 3rd Century nobody has proven this assertion wrong.

T