![]() Lots of scholars in Protestantism use very deceptive and flat out fabrications and changes to make their point. We will see some of this below and in fact a lot of it J.N.D. Kelley states“Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484) J.N.D. Kelley bases these assertions on two spurious citations and one that is mistranslated to deceive people who don’t know Latin and I will show you below. The fist citation from Jerome says he said, “We are saved by grace rather than works, for we can give God nothing in return for what he has bestowed on us.” J.N.D. Kelly claims this is from Jerome’s “Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.1.” One big problem with that is Jerome didn’t write a work called the Epistle to the Ephesians, the next problem is he never commented in relations to Ephesians 2:8-9. I have searchable original texts and translation and none of these things are together or possible words similar to these exist in Jerome’s works. The allusion to Ambrose of Milan comes from the fact that the Book of Concord has lots of spurious quotes including from Ambrosiaster which means "would be ambrose." It is a spurious work that claims to be by Ambrose of Milan that quotes Hilary without citing him to look legit just like how the gospel of Thomas and Judas used the language of other works. Here is the main quote from Article 6 of the Augsburg Confession it says, “Ambrose says: ‘It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.” This is from Ambrosiaster of which Desiderius Erasmus who knew Luther exposed this before the Protestant Reformation as a forgery. It isn’t very likely Martin Luther and other Lutherans didn’t know that it was a forgery but were rather willing to exploit poor access to information and literacy to support their narrative. Another work that is often cited is “Epistolam Ad Romanos” by Jerome this is dishonest as I will show and to give a preview “Ignorantes” that starts the sentence with “sola fide” means ignorant. When Protestant apologists and scholars cite “Epistolam Ad Romanos” they leave out the start of the sentence in quotations normally or mistranslating it with just “Deus ex sola fide justificat.” This is an incorrect claim. So below lets see Jerome’s full text in question in Latin; “Ignorantes enim justitiam Dei, et suam quaerentes statuere: justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. Ignorantes quod Deus ex sola fide justificat: et justos se ex legis operibus, quam non custodierunt, esse putantes: noluerunt se remissioni subjicere peccatorum, ne peccatores fuisse viderentur, sicut scriptum est: Pharisaei autem spernentes consilium Dei in semetipsis, noluerunt baptizari baptismo Joannis. Item quia sacrificia legis, et caetera, quae umbra erant veritatis, quae per Christum perfici habebant, praesentia Christi cessaverunt: cui credere noluerunt.” (Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D) Of course “sola fide” is in Jerome’s text. Now I will translate the defining part they have left out, “Being ignorant that God justifies from faith alone, they consider themselves to be just from the works of the Law which they do not keep.” The key here is the contrast to “works of the law.” Jerome continues adding “Pharisees” or “Pharisaei autem…).” Jerome is talking about Jewish Pharisees at the time of Christ who held they could be saved through the Mosaic works of the law which there is scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls called “the Works of the Law.” Jerome additionally identifies their “works” as pertaining to the “sacrifices of the Law which were shadows of the truth” or “quae umbra errant veritatis.” Jerome is contrasting the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant. He is not delivering an exposition on the impacts of all works per se in justification. That is the context and Jerome teaches works are necessary but what is opposed to is works of Jewish ceremony and sacrifice as we will see below when says; “Do not fancy your faith in Christ to be a reason for parting from her. For ‘God hath called us in peace.’ ‘Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.’ Neither celibacy nor wedlock is of the slightest use without works, since even faith, the distinguishing mark of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead, and on such terms as these the virgins of Vesta or of Juno, who was constant to one husband, might claim to be numbered among the saints.” (Jerome, To Pammachius, Epistle 48:6) Above Jerome mirrors James 2 and says that faith is useless “without works” and that someone who hasn’t departed from the faith is faithful to her husband and to be a saint you must be loyal. Now let’s look at the Greek text of Ignatius Antioch's Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans chapter 7 and the correct translation first. Then I will show you J.B. Lightfoot's and Charles H. Hoole's translations of the same chapter. The topic in the epistle is docetists who denied a physically present Christ. Ignatius of Antioch tsays, "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion of Christ has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." Here is what the Greek text says, "Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ Πατὴρ ἤγειρεν. Οί οὖν ἀντιλέγοντες τῇ δωρεᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ συζητοῦντες ἀποθνήσουσιν· συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγαπᾶν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν. Πρέπον ἐστὶν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν τοιούτων καὶ μήτε κατ’ ἰδίαν περὶ αὐτῶν λαλεῖν μήτε κοινῇ, προσέχειν δὲ τοῖς προφήταις, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τὸ Πάθος ἡμῖν δεδήλωται καὶ ἡ Ἀνάστασις τετελείωται. Τοὺς δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε ὡς ἀρχὴν κακῶν." Here is Lightfoot's translation it says, "They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish by their questionings. But it were expedient for them to have love, that they may also rise again. It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such, and not speak of them either privately or in public; but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished." Here is Hoole's translation it says, “They, therefore, who speak against the gift of God, die disputing. But it were better for them to love, that they might also rise again. It is, therefore, proper to abstain from such, and not to speak concerning them, either in private or in public; but to attend to the prophets, and especially to the gospel, in which the passion hath been revealed unto us, and the resurrection hath been perfected." I think the total subject matter change is obvious and deliberately done to remove the teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The next issue is Psalm 51:5 in the New International Version, New Living Translation, Holmans Christian Standard Bible, Net Bible and God’s Word Translation which sounds something like below; “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” The Hebrew > “הן־בעוון חוללתי ובחטא יחמתני אמי׃” The Greek > “ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐν ἀνομίαις συνελήμφθην καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ἐκίσσησέν με ἡ μήτηρ μου” What it actually says is, “Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother did conceive me.” According to Jewish tradition king David was a result of an adulterous affair which is he was treated by his brothers the way he was. However it doesn’t say he was a sinner at birth because that would contradict Exekiel 18:20 which says, “The person (soul) who sins is the one who will die. A son isn’t guilty for the father, and a father isn’t guilty for the son's guilt. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him." The next mistranslated verse is in the CEV, DBT, DRB , NIV, NLV, HCSB, KJV versions, NET Bible, Tyndale Bible (one of the mistranslations brought up in his trial), WBT and the Wycliffe Bible. It is John 3:36 There are two ways the real rendering is changed to hide real the meaning by different translations but about 40% of translations correctly translate it. The first way of changing it is, “He that believes in the Son has eternal life: and he that does not believe in the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God remains in him.” The second changed rendering is, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.” The Greek reads, “ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ Υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.” The correct rendering, “The one who believes (pisteuon) in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys (apeithon ot ‘ἀπειθῶν)’ the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him.” This relates to western misunderstanding about the Greek that I will address later but scholars know and some after teaching this have lost their position. Now their argument in this translation is incorrect for three reasons and I will address two and the other will become evident later on in the article. Firstly John 14:15-24 says Jesus has “all” his “commandments” that if you love him you will his commandments and if you do them he will love you as will the father and late you in his house. This is also how God manifests in you according to that passage. Luke 10:25-37 states that salvation comes through loving God and loving others which it defines loving others as acts of charity. In John 15:10 Jesus says if you keep his commandments he will abide in you. There are 1050 commands in the New Testament and many of them were given in the gospels but all the Apostles teachings come from Jesus according to Luke and Galatians. He didn’t have only one commandment to just trust in him but our concept of “believe” compared to the Greek is very different which is the word “pisteuo.” In the following verses the offending translations pretty much all agree that “aionios” means disobey and in some cases could demonstrably not mean unbelief based on the context; Romans 2:6-13, Romans 11:30-32, 1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 4:15-19 and 1 Peter 2:8. This means they know what the word means and instead serve their “traditions of men” above God. The next mistranslation is an example from Martin Luther in the Luther Bible in Romans 3:28 the portion that is of interest in German is “allein durch den Glauben” which in English means “by faith alone. The full verse German reads, “So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.” The full verse in English says, “So we now believe that man is justified without works of the law, by faith alone.” Here is how it should read, “For we hold that one is justified by faith separate from works of the law.” This is about the Mosaic Law in the context. As for Romans 4 he misunderstood because he didn’t read all all the relevant passages about Abraham of which there are 3 Genesis 15:1-7 (verse goes back to the next one), Genesis 12:1-8 and they’re both defined in meaning concerning Romans 4:1-6 in Hebrews 11:8. Next in Romans 3:24 verse closely located to one of Martin Luther’s changes we have the addition of “free” or “freely” in numerous translations which they want argue that “dorean” also means free and not just gift but it actually has more of connotation of of “granting” or “permitting” of “offer” and is just an adverb form of the verb “didomi” of which I know of no one who claims it is unearned gift or free. In fact grace isn’t freely given if Christ did anything and isn’t if repentance is required per Luke 13:5. Initial grace is unmerited and so is a pardon for sins but otherwise that is unsupported. The translations read or similar to this, “they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This is the correct rendering, “they are justified by His grace permissively through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” The next scholarship issue is 2 Timothy 3:16 which is an issue that came about as a mistranslation because of certain beliefs of the Protestant reformers. 2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” Greek text says, “πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,” I could cover the whole verse but we will just cover the four relevant words. We'll look at the whole verse, though it is really only THE FIRST FOUR WORDS that affect our discussion in this article. Here is the Greek text “πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,” A literal unpolished translation of this verse into English would read as follows: "All (pasa) writing (graphe) God-breathed (theopneustos) and (kai) profitable (ophelimos) toward (pros) learning (didaskalian), to (pros) persuade, toward correction (epanorthosin), toward (pos) fostering (paideian) in (en) the (ten) fairness (dikaiosune)" See Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary page 257 and Strong’s 1343, 1342 and 1349. That would seem right but the thing is it is not which is a little involved but it should read, “all God-breathed writing is profitable toward learning, to persuade, toward correction, to foster in fairness," Not all scripture is God breathed but all scripture is still scripture. Another thing should be noted is there are no verbs in the verse and verse 17 should be the same verse as 16. The only English Bible to have these as one verse is the Wycliffe Bible. The next issue we will be dealing with the claim that “Peter” or “Petros” spelled in Greek "Πέτρος" or "πέτρος" (all lowercase) was a pebble and Jesus was the big rock in Matthew 16:18-19. Protestant scholar D.A. Carson writes, “Although it is true that ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ can mean ‘small stone’ and ‘large rock’ retrospectively in earlier (Attic) Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry... The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine... If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholics interpretations, it is doubtful many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (D.A. Carson, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, page 368) Now what does Greek literature say about "petros" spelled “πέτρος?” A good example exists in Sophocles, “Oedipus Coloneus” in lines 1590 through 1595 which says, “But when he came to the edge, to the threshold of the abyss, to the steps that are made of bronze, he stopped at one of the many crossroads, near that deep fountain where the pact of eternal friendship between Theseus and Perithus is written. It says, "He stopped there and there, between that fountain and the Thorician rock ‘(petros’ i.e. ‘πέτρου),’ he sat down on the earth, near a hollow wild pear tree and a tomb stone. He took off his filthy clothes and called out to his daughters to bring him water from a nearby running stream, to purify himself with and to conduct libations." This was a large monument and Herodutus uses “petros” to refer to mountains." Now according to 1 Corinthians 12:24-27 the Church is Christ's body and it would appear that Peter helped lay the stone. So the correct answer to their objection of Christ being the rock is his Church becomes the rock and Peter lays the stone. This is consistent with being conformed to the “image” “(eikon” or icon) of Christ in Romans 8:29 who is the “image” “(eikon” or icon) of God in Colossians 1:15 and being “partakes of the divine nature” in 2 Peter 1:4. In conclusion there is a great reason to check everything Protestant sources and I recommend learning the meanings of words from literature and the fathers of the Church. If and when you use Lexicons try to use secular ones as the Christian ones are not objective with their theological commentary on words/bias. The Lexicons tend to use out of context or incorrect citations in literature or scripture that doesn’t support their claim 6 in 10 times in critically important words. If you need to use a translation go to Orthodox Study Bible, ESV or RSV.
1 Comment
![]() As evidence goes, let's cover it to see if these books were added and if they’re scripture. The deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint canon putting them in canon since at least 247 BC except for Maccabees which was finished no later than 134 BC after the revolt. They were mostly in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in all Septuagint translations. There is a Hebrew Tobit found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, multiple Aramaic Sirach fragments are known in Dead Sea Scrolls and Oxyrhynchus Papyri (see Volume 13 Oxyrhynchus 1594, Volume 8 Oxyrhynchus 1076 and Dead Sea Scrolls fragments 4Q197 through 4Q200). There are Hebrew and Aramaic Sirach’s (Dead Sea Scrolls 2Q18 included 6 plates with several fragments and See in the Cairo Genizah collection in Cambridge University XXXVII, 22). Philo of Alexandria before 50 AD quoted the Septuagint versions of these books. Jeremiah 36:16-20 says Baruch is inspired. The New Testament draws from these books despite the myth of it not doing so. John 3:13 is a reference to Baruch 3:29, Matthew. 2:16 draws from Wisdom 11:7 Matthew 6:19-20 draws from Sirach 29:11, Matthew 7:12 draws from Tobit 4:15, Matthew 7:16,20 draws from Sirach 27:6, Matthew 9:36 draws from Judith 11:19, Matthew 11:25 draws from Tobit 7:18, Acts 1:15 draws from 1 Maccabees 3:55, Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6 draw from Sirach 35:12, Acts 17:29 draws from Wisdom 13:10, Romans 9:21 draws from Wisdom 15:7, 1 Corinthians 2:16 draws from Wisdom 9:13, 1 Corinthians 6:12-13; 10:23-26 draws from Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30, Ephesians. 6:14 draws from Wisdom 5:18, Ephesians 6:13-17 draws from Wisdom 5:17-20, Hebrews 11:35 draws from 2 Maccabees 7:1-42, James 1:19 draws from Sirach 5:11 and 2 Peter 2:7 draws from Wisdom 10:6 just to name some of the examples. Josephus and Philo both cited the 70 temple scholars as having made the Septuagint and Josephus named the letter in question dating the Septuagint. There are 3 copies from before the Dark Ages of the Letter of Aristeas commissioning the Septuagint in 247 BC. There are prophecies unique fulfilled prophecies in the Septuagint deuterocanonical books about see Wisdom 2:12-20 and Baruch 4:22-29 . The Didache is from 70 AD and is the first catechism probably written by James the Just . The Didache says “Do not be one who holds his hand out to take, but shuts it when it comes to giving,” which is a quote from Sirach 4:3. The earliest canons by Church writers have these books in them as well like the Roman canon, Hippo canon, Carthaginian canon and the 6th ecumenical council (681 AD) affirmed these canons. The Letter of Pope Agatho in the 6th great council stating, "Moreover, most pious and God-instructed sons and lords, if the Archbishop of the Church of Constantinople shall choose to hold and to preach with us this most unblameable rule of Apostolic doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, of the venerable synods, of the spiritual Fathers, according to their evangelical understanding, through which the form of the truth." The synod's are the prior non-ecumenical synod's/councils and the context helps understand what it is talking about. So the Church had dogmatically defined scripture long before Protestantism was ever an issue. Ecumenical councils text is agreed upon by the bishops of the known world. The whole Church needed to have been wrong at once for this to be in error. This wasn't the first endorsement of an ecumenical council. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) says, "Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, 'Do all things with advice” which is from Sirach 32:24 and best shown in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Most modern translations deemphasize the divine council aspect of that verse. Those who oppose the deuterocanonical books often try to claim St. Jerome or St. Ambrose of Milan. This argument is actually a result of poor education in Church history. Jerome and Ambrose were both key players in the council of Rome which is the first canonical reference to the canon. Also no matter how they spin this Jerome did translate the whole bible into Latin. Another side to this is the early Church writers quoted these books. St. Augustine said, "For in His hidden counsel and mercy God was in this manner making provision for the salvation of these kings. It pleased Him, however, to make no such provision in the case of Antiochus the king, who cruelly put the Maccabees to death; but He punished the heart of the obdurate king with sharper severity through their most glorious sufferings. Yet read what was said by even one of them — the sixth who suffered: After him they brought also the sixth, who, being ready to die, said, 'Be not deceived without cause; for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against God: therefore marvellous things are done unto us; but think not you that takest in hand to strive against God and His law that you shall escape unpunished' (2 Maccabbees 7:18-19). You see how these also are wise in the exercise of humility and sincerity, confessing that they are chastened because of their sins by the Lord, of whom it is written: Whom the Lord loves He corrects, (Proverbs 3:12) and He scourges every son whom He receives; (Hebrews 12:6) wherefore the Apostle says also, If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:31-32)" (Letter 111, 5 [A.D. 409]) St. Augustine said, "Also in another place he says, "This is my God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him; who has found out all the way of prudence, and has given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved: afterwards He was seen on the earth, and conversed with men (Baruch 3:35-36)." Some attribute this testimony not to Jeremiah, but to his secretary, who was called Baruch; but it is more commonly ascribed to Jeremiah. Again the same prophet says concerning Him, Behold the days come, says the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous shoot, and a King shall reign and shall be wise, and shall do judgment and justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently: and this is the name which they shall call Him, Our righteous Lord (Jeremiah 23:5-6);" (City of God, book 38, chapter 33, [A.D. 430]) St. John Chrysostom said, "A certain wise man, setting down a number of things in the rank of blessings, set down this also in the rank of a blessing, A wife agreeing with her husband' (Sirach 25:1. And elsewhere again he sets it down among blessings, that a woman should dwell in harmony with her husband (Sirach 40:23)...Hear the Scripture that says, 'The bee is little among such as fly, but her fruit is the chief of sweet things (Sirach 11:3). She is of God's fashioning." (Homily 20 on Ephesians, [A.D. 407]) St. Cyprian of Carthage said, "But again some of our colleagues would rather give honour to heretics than agree with us; and while by the assertion of one baptism they are unwilling to baptize those that come, they thus either themselves make two baptisms in saying that there is a baptism among heretics; or certainly, which is a matter of more importance, they strive to set before and prefer the sordid and profane washing of heretics to the true and only and legitimate baptism of the Catholic Church, not considering that it is written, 'He who is baptized by one dead, what avails his washing' (Sirach 34:25)? Now it is manifest that they who are not in the Church of Christ are reckoned among the dead; and another cannot be made alive by him who himself is not alive, since there is one Church which, having attained the grace of eternal life, both lives for ever and quickens the people of God." (Epistle 70, 1 [A.D. 258]) The claim of them not being in the Jewish canon is spurious because the canon was different before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. After the destruction of the temple and the rise of Christianity Judaism had to reinvent itself. These scriptures got more and more detailed as it got closer to the coming of the messiah regarding who he was and what he was and what he would do. They became a problem in the mid to late 1st century for Jewish leaders wanting to protect their tradition. However, even before 70 AD you had several canons and the temple canon. Jesus used the temple canon in in the Bible and others with some groups like the Sadducee's which like the Samaritans only considered the first 5 books to be canonical and they had various versions of them. As for the Essene's they varied from a broad canon to include books like Noah and Abraham which no one considers canonical today; to the temple canon which is found in the Septuagint and a very limited canon. The Pharisees varied from accepting the temple canon to just accepting the Torah, Prophets and Psalms not including most of the writings and some thought Enoch and Jubilees was scripture. Philo of Alexandria who wrote until 50 AD cited the Deuterocanonical books as scripture. The rest of the books are mostly used in the Talmud like Baruch, Judith, Tobit and Sirach. Orthodox Jewish mostly believe the Talmud is inspired and they had to take these books partially because without taking them in with a limited form much of Jewish practice and tradition would have no bearing. Of course some faslely assert that Deuterocanonical means it is not in the canon however this is not the understanding by anyone in the past. The term was just understood as a division in the canon of books mostly from a later period just like you have prophetic period and a Mosaic period in canon. So the idea that the Jews never accepted them is a great fallacy and the Jews have lots of issues with credibility if you look into the history of Jewish Gnosticism (2nd century BC), what took place after the destruction of the temple (70 to 74 AD), the Talmudic period, what the Masoretes did with Hebrew and how the Masoretic text was made (7th to 10th century AD), the history of the Zohar (13th century AD), the reinterpretation of the Zohar and Talmud (18th century AD) and the creation of the 4 modern branches of Judaism and their theology (early to mid 19th century). You can’t take them seriously if you know their history and how they have changed things. The history of the removal of the deuterocanon is not from the reformers in Protestantism but rather done in the 1800s by Protestant bible societies. The first push to remove the full can was launched by the National Bible Society of Scotland when they petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society to no longer print it in 1826 and they voted not to do so in 1827 (Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning. page 90). The Church of England kept all the books of the Bible until 1885 and the American Bible Society did until 1880. So this fight over canon is fairly new and departure from things that were always accepted. Lots of groups form their own Bible like the Mormon's Jehovah's Witnesses. Early Protestant Bible Tables of Contents Links to Early Church Councils Relating to the Canon:
Sixth Ecumenical Council see The Letter of Pope Agatho http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm Council of Carthage See canon 24 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm Synod of Hippo (I could only find the relevant canon in English for you) https://www.revolvy.com/page/Synod-of-Hippo Council of Rome: The link only has the relevant portion https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html 2 Peter 1:20 says that no teaching of scripture (prophecy) is for “private interpretation” which is why the Ethiopian Eunuch an educated man read scripture and needed an interpreter in Acts 8:29-31. The Eunuch said he couldn't understand it on his own. Apollos was a well educated man but didn’t know scripture correctly and needed to be explained through tradition what it meant in Acts 18:24-26. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says there two traditions we keep oral and the epistles. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says we shouldn't even be around those who profess Christian but don't keep the tradition. Ultimately this is about the faith once delivered in Jude 1:3.
![]() Many people hotly debate this issue with extremes of Anglo-Israelism, Black Hebrew Israelites, Restafarians and Africanism. I will open with a preacher's story. Two men Joe and Mike always argued whether Jesus was white or black. Now a few years ago they died on the same day and got to heaven the same time. They called out to Peter at the gates and Jesus came out and said, "buenos dias!" This isn’t far from how he looked besides the language issue of what he spoke as I will demonstrate. First off as these articles show we can trace the Jews back to the Levant genetically and they’re from the same Semitic that most Arabs in that part of the Levant come from today. Below are some articles on genetics studies. The first one is an actual genetic study which studies Ethiopian, Indian and European Jews. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09103 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2000/10/jews-and-arabs-share-recent-ancestry https://www.haaretz.com/1.5131928 We also can establish that there is great science behind the Shroud of Turin. Two of the researchers including the head of the project who are the basis of debunking the Shroud not only recanted on finding new blood evidence on the Shroud of Turin and discovering their samples were from a later repair but one of them was an atheist the lead scientist and the other a Jew became Christians over their discovery. Below are links on evidence of the Shroud and the people in questions findings. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo/ https://youtu.be/fm0ChS1bmSU https://youtu.be/WRB16BARvz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY Now that we can establish a population of DNA from the Jews and a possible image of Jesus. You also can use images of how people dressed then in old paintings or mosaics, we even have images of Jewish people made in the period as shown below, we can use other anthropological data as well to help us know how he looked. In the below articles they through research reveal what he probably looked like through these methods. I don’t agree with the History Channel about the Shroud of Turin and just some of the reasons are shown in prior links. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 https://www.history.com/news/what-did-jesus-look-like https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/ So Jesus was a Semite not Irish, English, French, Italian or African. He looked closer to the above image then many European depictions. Jesus looked more like Muhammad then a European in dsimay to Muslims who think their prophet was white.
![]() Was Mary a forever virgin? Lets see the objections and what scripture actually says. In addition we will look at the historical context and language. The first objection people bring up is Matthew 1:25 it says Joseph, “knew her not until she had given birth to a son” in speaking about Mary. Now in Greek and other languages “until” doesn’t always mean after or a change it can mean a continuation for example 2 Samuel 6:23, 1 Timothy 4:13 (see Greek Seputagint) and 1 Corinthians 15:25 “until” or "heos" occurred after that and in one case forever. The next issue is what “to know means” isn’t always what it means in our culture or even used the same way in theirs. The interpretation used to argue against virginity is a form of anachronism in this case. In the Dead Sea Scrolls it seems the Essenes believed in a version of uncleanliness after birth that didn’t allow any physical contact including holding hands or eating food they touched until they had waited the correct period after birth, given a sacrifice at the temple and gone through mikvah purification in water. There is fine evidence that John the Baptist was an Essene and he was a Jesus cousin so it is not a stretch to think that Jesus family were Essenes. The next objection is that Jesus had brothers in places like Matthew 13:55, Galatians 1:19 (James) and Matthew 12:46. The word “brother” is “adelphos” but despite false claims that in Greek “cousins” and “kinsmen” are always referred to by another word that is simply false. In numerous contemporary works “adelphos” are kinsmen or other relatives even uncles sometimes. A good example of this is in Genesis 14:16 in the Greek Septuagint version from 247 BC the Greek is “καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν πᾶσαν τὴν ἵππον Σοδομων καὶ Λωτ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπέστρεψεν καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς γυναῗκας καὶ τὸν λαόν.” The word“adelphos” is used in the tense of “ἀδελφὸν” from “ἀδελφός” or “adelphos.” In this text Lot is called Abram’s “adelphos” even though they’re not brothers. So this is not a valid objection. As for sister or "adelphe" it is used in literal for cousins see OGI60.3. Furthermore we must look at cultural clues in John 7:3-7 where the alleged brothers of Jesus are critiquing him. If these were younger brothers or even younger relatives in ancient Palestine you wouldn’t question your elders. There was a hierarchy within families that was respected and respecting your elders from a Tanakh understanding wasn’t just your parents and grandparents. The next point is in Matthew 13:55 where Jesus alleged brothers are named and in Matthew 27:56 it names two of them again but it says Mary Magdalene is there mother not Mary the mother of Jesus. In Galatians 1:19 James is called an apostle who is the brother of Jesus but scriptures says there are two apostles named James that is James the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15-16) and James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 10:2) not a James son of Joseph. In Luke 2:41-51 at the age of 12 Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the temple but no siblings are mentioned and He would be the youngest of Mary’s kids. Mary is properly to be considered the spouse of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her and was the formal cause of her virginal conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35). This is why her offspring, Jesus, “will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35) and is called the mother of the Lord which in their language would be “Yahweh” in Luke 1:43. Mary had a vow of virginity relevant verse is Luke 1:34: “How shall this be, seeing I do not know man.” These words of Mary to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation show that Mary did not intend to have conjugal relations with a man; otherwise, Mary surely would have known that conjugal relations with Joseph, her husband, could cause a pregnancy. Seeing Gabriel’s proclamation, however, the virgin was embarrassed; not a result of the majesty given to Mary, but rather for the way in which such a maternity might be realized. The embarrassment would seem inexplicable because, on any reasonable grounds, she is precisely a woman in ideal conditions to conceive a son. She is the young spouse of Joseph. What young spouse would not be inclined to desire a beautiful son? It is obvious, therefore, and it should be acknowledged that Mary’s difficulty originates from a precise commitment, vow or promise “not to know man,” that is, to be and remain a virgin. St. Augustine rightly says, that “Mary certainly would not have spoken those words If she had not vowed her virginity to Got” In fact, only by admitting Mary’s virginal consecration to God, can it be understood why she found herself facing an unsolvable dilemma: How to reconcile her virginal offering to God with the request of maternity on the part of God? How could she become a mother without betraying a promise of virginal consecration to God. The next argument people make is that Mary was never called Jesus mother by Jesus. This is actually a prophetic title of honor from Jeremiah 31:22 which I will address later. This argument is also Nestorian at best and semi-Arian at worst since they’re denying a key part to his human nature and saying that he wasn’t born as a God if you take it to its logical conclusion. The fact is that scripture does call Jesus Mary’s son in John 2:1, John 19:25, and Acts 1:1 and she is called his mother in Luke 1:43, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 12:46 and John 2:3. So Mary was Jesus mother fully in every respect. In John 19:25-26 it says, “Mary the wife of Clopas” now if that Mary was Mary’s sister that would be odd to have two Mary’s from the same parentage. Now in fragment 10 Papias the disciple of of John and co-worker of Polycarp said in the late 1st century to early 2nd century, "Mary the mother of the Lord; Mary the wife of Cleopas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord's. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleopas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleopas, because she had two husbands." Mary the mother of God was a relative likely the cousin of Mary the wife of Clopas and they lived in the same household. This was not uncommon to have extended families in the same household. Now lets see what historical accounts tell us. In The History of Joseph the Carpenter in chapter 3 it says, “Now when righteous Joseph became a widower, my mother Mary, blessed, holy, and pure, was already twelve years old. For her parents offered her in the temple when she was three years of age, and she remained in the temple of the Lord nine years.” So Joseph was much older than Mary and had at least one prior marriage. Now Epiphanius bishop of Salamis wrote, "James, the brother of the Lord died in virginity at the age of ninety-six". (The Panarion, [374 AD]) Now this tells us James old when died so when did he died? According to a passage found in the existing manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus but before Lucceius Albinus had assumed office (see Antiquities 20:9) – which has been dated to 62 AD. This means James was an adult when Jesus was born. The Protoevangelium of James in chapter 15 (120 AD) it says, “And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’. And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man” This is well after they had been together showing showing she remained a virgin. In the Apocryphal Acts which is from the 2nd century it says, "He came forth from the woman, the Word that became flesh, and her virginity remained immaculate forever." She according to this source remained a virgin forever." Origen said on the matter of Mary’s virginity, “Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). Here you have the idea that Mary was a forever virgin. What did the reformers think? Luther said, “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” actually means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Luther’s Works, vol. 22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539]) Luther also said, “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] ) Calvin said, “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.” (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55) Calvin also said, “The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107) Calvin further notes, “Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.” (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] ) Point of fact: Luther (and Zwingli) believed in Perpetual Virginity; Calvin was agnostic on the issue. Here is Calvin’s quote in full; “This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.” (Calv Comm Matt 1.25) John Wesley “I believe that he was made man...and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” (A Letter to a Roman Catholic) So we can see the great reformers didn’t deny Mary’s perpetual virginity and most embraced it. Was Mary sinless? Often the argument that Mary must have sinned originates from 1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 stating all have sinned. First we must understand that actual acts of sin aren’t hereditary per Ezekiel 18:20. Second there are exceptions “all” doesn’t mean in our understanding of the word for example Romans 10:15-18 says all the world had heard the gospel which can’t even mean the Roman world because of Britain and other places hadn’t heard it yet. Furthermore Jesus is fully man and a person but Hebrews 4:15, Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:22 say Jesus didn’t sin. You might say He is the only exception but what if I could prove to you that there were several millions of exceptions? I can Romans 9:10-13 says Jacob and Esau were in the womb and “had done nothing either good or bad.” So all babies who die or those who die in the womb are persons or a part of all mankind who didn’t sin. This is several million people who never sinned. So the “all have sinned” doesn’t mean all in our concept of the word. The passages you would cite are about personal sin. Now next we have Luke 1:28-29 where the angel greets her or says, “hail” followed by the Greek word “kecharitomene” of the word “charitoo” which comes from “charis” meaning grace and the full word means “full of grace.” She in verse 29 is troubled it says by being given this name and in Hebrew culture names mean things they're the calling and purpose of the one named. In Genesis 17:5 Abram was named Abraham because he was the father of the Jewish nation for example. Mary in this case was named “full of grace.” This name means Mary was the perfection of grace using a perfect passive participle meaning past, present and future in Greek. So why was she not always called that? Why wasn’t Jesus always called all of his names? That would be strange but these things were like titles more or less. So Mary never sinned! Now we go to Genesis 3:15 where God goes to Satan after Eve made the first sinned (1 Timothy 2:14) and God says he we make, “enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The man who crushes Satan is Jesus and the woman who has offspring is Mary and her offspring is Jesus. God here is telling Satan you think you have crushed man but there is a new Adam (Jesus) and new Eve (Mary) that are coming to crush your head. Jesus is called the last Adam or new Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45 also see Romans 5:14. To further support this, Jeremiah 31:22 says there is a woman who encompasses a man and this is in the context of Jeremiah 31:31-34 which speaks of a new covenant that is like no other. This passage in Jeremiah is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13 which is our new covenant. Why is encompassing the man important? In the first creation story the woman was encompassed by the man coming from his rib but in the recapitulation where God restores all things it is all reversed. Now the man is encompassed from the woman the new Eve. In Revelation 12:4-5 Mary gives birth to Jesus and in verse 17 it says she gave birth to all Christians making her our spiritual mother. Mary is the new Eve and Jesus is the new Adam. Christians have said this from the very beginning that Mary was the new Eve. For example the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus from 120 AD says, “Let your heart be your wisdom; and let your life be true knowledge inwardly received. Bearing this tree and displaying its fruit, you shall always gather in those things which are desired by God, which the Serpent cannot reach, and to which deception does not approach; nor is Eve then corrupted, but is trusted as a virgin; and salvation is manifested.” St. Justin Martyr in 150 AD said Mary was the new Eve, St. Irenaeus who learned from a disciple of John said this in 180 AD and the list goes on. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant that carried Jesus. Amen! |