It has been said that 'the Church Fathers cannot be trusted?' It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, there were long chronicles of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another. It is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers' writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not even apostles, never mind prophets. They were not infallible. And yet they canonized the scriptures?

The New Testament was canonized by the Church Fathers who were mainly Roman Catholics, not protestants! They believed in Virgin Mary being an intercessor, the Pope being Christ representative on earth, the existence of purgatory, etc. we must constantly remember that the words in our New Testament were copied, transmitted, edited, translated, defined canonized by people who had very specific agendas and beliefs; namely to replace the Hebraic Messianic version of Christianity with a purely separated Gentile mixed paganism. Let us never forget that the Roman Catholic model for Protestantism today is a creation of Romans and Gentiles and not of a Jew named Jesus!

Melito 170 Origen 240 Cyril of Jerusalem 350 Hilary of Poitiers 360 The Cheltenham List 360 Council of Laodicea 363 Athanasius 367 Gregory of Nazianus 380 Amphilocius of Iconium 380 The “Apostolic Canons” 380 Rufinus of Aquileia 380 Epiphanius 385 Jerome 390 Augustine 397 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Innocent I 405 Codex Claromontanus 400 Decree of Gelasius 550 John of Damascus 730

It has been taught that the leaders of the early church, acting upon the Apostolic witness, accepted as holy certain writings from the very beginnings of the church in the first century which make up what we now call Scriptures. But the book of Hebrews and Jude were not written by an Apostle!

Today you would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who believes that the Book of Hebrews was actually the work of the Apostle Paul. Instead, based on their research, many names have been accredited with the writing, ranging from Clement of Rome, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, or some unknown Alexandrian Christian. The Traditional view is that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Scofield in his Study Bible declares that Paul the Apostle was the true author of Hebrews, because of 11 Peter 3:15 and Hebrews 13:23. However, this is certainly not conclusive. Timothy often traveled with Paul (Heb. 13:23).11 Peter contains matters that could have been used to backup the Book of Hebrews - this is some of the reasoning. * The Greek scholar Zodhiates comments that some Greek experts attribute the writing of Hebrews to Priscilla.

The bottom line is that no one knows who wrote Hebrews, there is no explicit indication given in the Epistle itself about this. Some suggestions are Paul, Apollos, Silas, Aquila (or Priscilla with Aquila), and Philip the evangelist. Tertullian asserted that Barnabas wrote it. He based this on many things, including the fact that Barnabas' Christian name means "son of exhortion" (Acts 4:36). "Consolation" is also translated "exhortation." Hebrews is a "word of exhortation" - see Hebrews 13:22. Barnabas was a Levite, and scholars believe that there are characteristics in the book of Hebrews that indicate that the writer was a Levite. Tertullian was a Church Father, writer and scholar, who lived in AD 150-220. There is possibly no hope of succeeding in finding out for sure who wrote this Book of Hebrews. The subject has been a discussion for hundreds of years!

The book of Jude was also not written by an apostle. Writer Of The Letter Of Jude - “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,” Jude 1 The Jude who wrote this letter was not an apostle.

-- Josephine Melrose (JosephineMelrose76@Hotmail.com), October 21, 2003

Answers

Josephine, do you actually know anything yourself?

Have you ever heard of plagiarism?

When you copy what others have written, don't you think that you should give the credit (even if they do a dumb thing like attacking the Catholic Church)?

I found pieces of "your" attack at the following Internet sites:

http://www.gty.org/~phil/fathers.htm

http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/BCU/HebrewsIntro.htm

Why do you want to pollute this Catholic site with your anti-Catholic thoughts? What is your purpose here? Where is your question to us? Why didn't you quote from other sites that completely refute your thesis? Oh, you say you've never read them? Well, get busy and do some research. And start writing your own material, please. (By the way, Catholics have no trouble at all admitting that St. Paul may not have been the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews -- so you wasted your time copying that stuff.)

-- (Know@Anything.Yourself?), October 21, 2003.

The Fathers of the Church did not canonize the scriptures. The bishops of the Church, assembled in Council, did so, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Of course they were not individually infallible, any more than the first bishops of the Church, the Apostles, were individually infallible; yet those same fallible Apostles were able to infallibly record in writing those portions of the Word of God which the primary author, God, wished to have recorded in writing. It is hardly a surprise then that once God had inspired the Church to compile its inspired writings into a bound volume, the same Holy Spirit who had inspired the writing through fallible men also inspired the compilation of the book through fallible men. If either the initial writing or the later canonization of the writings was less than divinely inspired, the Bible holds no more authoritative a position than many other religious texts. The only attribute of the Bible which sets it apart from all other literature is the fact of its divine inspiration, both in the initial writing and in the subsequent acceptance into the Canon. Those two facts give the Bible its objective inerrancy. Needless to say, the objective inerrancy of the text does not guarantee inerrancy in the understanding of the text. Protestantism is living proof of that! For proper understanding to emerge from an objectively inerrant text, infallible interpretation is also required. You need an interpreter to whom God, the primary author of the text, has said "He who hears you hears Me"; "Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"; "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth". Any use of the scriptures without the benefit of these divine promises is mere guesswork.

It is utterly irrelevant whether a particular text was written by an Apostle or not. The human instrument God used to record a specific text was not the principle criterion the Church used in selecting the works of the Canon. They selected those works which the Holy Spirit inspired them to select. The writers wrote what God directed them to write. The compilers selected those texts God directed them to select. The Book of Jude is not there because it was penned by Jude. It is there because God wanted it there. Nothing else matters.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 21, 2003.

So Catholics have become legalists and not only false ones? Who says I cannot accept the opinions and views of others to be mine?

MK 13:22 "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

MK 16:17 "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 16:18 "they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

JUDE 1:5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Since the above scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit it means that those who believe cast out devils, speak with tongues, deal with serpents, are under God's protection and lay hands on the sick and they recover? While those who don't believe don't do such things? And that also means according to Jude the Lord will destroy those who don't believe even after He has saved them?

"My principle is to do whatever is right and leave the consequences to Him who has the disposal of them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1813.

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.. – Thomas Jefferson Letter To Francis Hopkinson, Paris Mar. 13, 1789

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose. – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

-- Josephine Melrose (JosephineMelrose76@Hotmail.com), October 21, 2003.

Jude the brother of James was a cousin to Jesus; Jude Thaddeus. They were two of those whom anticatholics insist were Jesus brothers; children of the Virgin Mary.

Josephine maintains among much other verbose irrelevance,---

'' [The NT] canonized by people who had very specific agendas and beliefs; namely to replace the Hebraic Messianic version of Christianity with a purely separate Gentile mixed paganism. Let us never forget that the Roman Catholic model for Protestantism today is a creation of Romans and Gentiles and not of a Jew named Jesus!'' What a lot of balderdash.

Her own specific agenda is to confuse. Who knows how she arrived at these amusing travesties? Even overtly anticatholic agendas ought to spread the blame. Josephine doesn't know which Catholics to castigate; the apostles, the early Church, our own scholars or the Popes. Her flood of abuse for the Church is like a filthy spitoon, it gleams on the outside. She shines it and places it where her antcatholic customers can take aim at it with their lips. She runs a truly nasty saloon! Josie: Take a look in the 'back room' and see what the boys will have; willya?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.

It is my understanding that the book of Jude was not written until about 185BC.It was to give authority to the book called the Assumption of Moses.The book of Jude is not know to exist before 185BC and most likly is a gnostic gospel.Falsifying documents was common place in the catholic church according to history.I believe it was Origens commentary on the book of Jude that stated that.

-- Michael (michaeltheearchangel@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

Do you perhaps mean 185 AD?

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

The history and authorship of Jude can be researched here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08542b.htm

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

Josephine, you may believe anything you want, but what you have done is take the work of another and subscribe your name to it. I am sure that the authors of the materials you copied would not be pleased, and could even perhaps have you prosecuted.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 10, 2004.

And so Thomas Jeferson wrote his own scriptures and appearantly still has his own disciples. What was his beef with the Greeks anyway?

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), February 10, 2004.

Didn't Jefferson state:

In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose. – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814 For unfortunately down through the ages men do not change and power and greed corrupts them. As Jefferson stated:

"When we come to the moral principles on which the government is to be administered, we come to what is proper for all conditions of society. Liberty, truth, probity, honor, are declared to be the four cardinal principles of society. I believe that morality, compassion, generosity, are innate elements of the human constitution; that there exists a right independent of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

-- John Good (Johngood@email.com), March 09, 2004.

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ...

We all know that Thomas Jefferson was anti-clerical and did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Although he did vote to allow churches to use the Capital building for services during his tenure and also for chaplains in the House and Senate. In a lot of instances, as most polititians, Thomas Jefferson was two-faced in what he said and did. I would take everything he said with a grain of salt.

The proof of the weakness of his words is that they are not true of our pope today.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 09, 2004.