Vic, my Friend,
In my previous post, I asked:
Do you have a source which proves what you have posted? Or in this just another of your "spit out anything" response -- hoping someone will believe you?
Let me offer you one of my proofs -- taken from a Roman Catholic web site:
Jerome and the Apocrypha
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
And, all you did was to regurgitate your previous plagiarized post. So, let me offer you more proof of Jerome's position on the Apocrypha:
The Old Testament “Apocrypha”in Jerome’s Canonical Theory
JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
By Dr. Edmon L. Gallagher
http://www.academia.edu/262759...mes_Canonical_Theory
In his preface to Samuel and Kings (the Prologus Galeatus), Jerome sets forth a theory of the Old Testament canon that allows for no room between the canonical books and the apocrypha. However, Jerome elsewhere maintained a more neutral or even positive view of some of the non-canonical books, even accepting their use within the ecclesiastical liturgy. Jerome’s seemingly inconsistent attitude toward some books he classies as “apocrypha” has led scholars to posit a development in Jerome’s canonical theory, such that his earlier position was accepting of books that he later excluded, and to suppose that Jerome’s use of the word “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus relied on a neutral definition of the term.
This paper examines the evidence for these claims and finds them wanting. While Jerome consistently regarded the books labeled “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus as outside the canon, he chose to propagate an especially harsh judgment against these books especially in this preface. The confusion arising from Jerome’s comments may be explained as a consequence of a multi-faceted plan to realign the church’s Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible, a plan that Jerome articulates only partially on any given occasion.
In the “helmeted preface” (Prologus Galeatus, henceforth Prol. Gal.) to his new Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, Jerome explains to his readers the structure and contents of the Jewish biblical canon.1 Part of the purpose of this list is, Jerome says, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, interapocrifa seponendum (“so that we may know that whatever is outside these [books] should be consigned to the apocrypha”; lines 53–54).
He then provides a list of books thus included among the apocrypha, these being the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. 2 Jerome further says of these seven books, non sunt in canone (“they are not in the canon”; line 55).
Now, do you have any valid information to refute what I have posted? Or will you just continue to copy/paste what you have already attempted to "throw against the wall"?
Since Jerome and Pope Damasus (366–384 AD) were the two key players in the Latin Vulgate -- and Jerome was against including the Apocrypha -- the only logical conclusion can be that Pope Damasus FORCED him to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic church for a very long time.
So, since I have shown you this proof -- what proof do you have to refute it?
Or will you just resort to your typical response and start defecating all your insults, name calling, and your repeated anthem, "You are a liar!"
So, my question to you: Do we stay on an adult level and have a constructive discussion -- or will your stay at the child level?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill