Bishops, Elders & Deacons

[Guest]

Jesus never commanded the commissioning the creation of bibles, did He? Jesus did command that disciples be taught all things "He" commanded.

What a truth you have expressed here, Sean!

[Guest]

Wow. Can't wait to answer this stuff, but no time 'cause I just got back from the field and going back tomorrow. Only have a second to say hello. Bear with my next post because it will be a bit lengthy (again).

Boy, with some of the statements/positions in those last posts....why have a Bible?!

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Boy, with some of the statements/positions in those last posts....why have a Bible?!

Hmmm... if the definitions are not fully comprehensive, and if there are even typographical and lexicographical errors on occasion, then why have a dictionary?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hmmmm..... I didn't realize some of you place the God Breathed, Holy Scriptures on the same level as a man-made dictionary, but if that is cool for you...peace.

Before I attempt to answer any questions about purgatory, I need some clarification. Who wants to speak for the group of you? Go and email each other so you can decide how you will do this because if you don’t then we’ll be all over the board. I need to know:

1. What is the Protestant Christian concept of “Purgatory” (we all need to be on the same understanding and if you are off from a Catholic Christian understanding then I’ll do my best to correct any misunderstanding).

2. I do not want this to be another thread because I want to get back to 100% God Breathed scripture. I want to answer this question as to where purgatory is in the OT only for Sean because it appears he feels that there is no important need to differentiate between a Protestant or Catholic Bible. So, has anybody answered yet why there is a difference in a Protestant OT and the Hebrew OT?

Give me your purgatory definition and I’ll bring us back to scripture because I don’t want Homer, et al, yelling at me that I am going all over the place with questions.

Christ’s Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Dear Sean,

I will answer your Purgatory question but let me quickly answer your OT question about councils...etc.

First, the Bible is a collection of books and letters, some from Old Covenant times and some from New Covenant times. There have always been many of these running around as "sacred", "God Breathed" and from what I understand most of the problems in what was "sacred" occurred just prior to and after Jesus' death/resurrection.

The Pharisees found Jesus and the new converts a huge problem (Acts 6 & 11). They could not stop the spread of the Word and all the new converts which were coming primarily from the Jewish faith, so the political Jews were losing their power base.

We know what the Diaspora Jews from the pre-political Pharisaical times were reading as scared OT text. The Falashian Jews (which is a pejorative placed on these Jews by the Hebrews, but they called themselves the "House of God") were reading a Greek collection of OT books as "sacred", so when these Jews were chased/dispersed from Israel they carried with them their traditions and sacred books (which Israel acknowledges today as a LXX Greek OT text, not the Hebrew text).

We also know that the very orthodox and religious "world is coming to an end" Jewish Essenes who moved to Qumran were preparing for the coming of God (in their lifetime) so you would not exactly be reading comic books, rather sacred OT text, right? Well, we know these book fragments as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other than having one full book of the OT there are fragments of the rest including parts of the Greek LXX OT. If the LXX was not sacred why read it if God is coming....that would be nonsensical. This begins to go hand-in-hand with the Falashian Jews sacred text.

Even our NT scripture shows evidence of the problems of the Hebrew Jews vs the Greek Jews in Acts 6:1 because the Hebrew Jews were overlooking the care of widows and food distribution, so we know by NT scripture there already existed a problem. Even though we do not know the author of Acts there is some speculation (NIV editorial staff) that it was Luke written about 65-70AD so we have proof of Greek and Hebrew Jewish divisions. Well, guess what happened about 100AD some 30 years later? In answer to the Greek OT text that the Christains were reading as sacred, the Hebrew Jews decided to stop any mention of this "Christian" son-of-man and resurrection theology talk.

The Hebrew Jews at the Pharisaical School at Jamnia (coast of Israel) had convened a council that was first OK'ed by the Roman authority. It was at this Jewish council we have the first codification by Jewish law what the Hebrew OT shall have in it, ie, 39 books. Seven other books and ALL known NT books were cursed and banished from study! So the 46 OT books studied and worshiped by the Greek Jews of Acts 6:1 were accursed and pronounced as APOCRYPHAL (so that's where that comes from!). But remember, these Pharisaical Jews did not only call those books Apocryphal but ALLl the know NT books, too! They even came up with a poem cursing all Christians to hell! Great (Christian?) council, huh?

Well, the Christian conversion continued regardless of the Hebrew OT canon, all the while using the Greek OT LXX text. Meanwhile, many versions of NT writing were being promulgated as "sacred". Unfortunately, there were all sorts of "sacred" NT texts running around, ie, the Book of Pilate, the Book of Barnabus and the Book of Judas (remember that on TV?)...etc. As the leaders of the Christian Church (oh no, here we go .... BISHOPS!) realized that false teachings were going out then councils were called (same situation in Acts 15) to codify many teachings, as well as, what books were sacred and the "Bible" began to jell.

The first known recorded council was that Council of Damasus (382AD), then the Council of Carthage (393AD) and then the Council at Hippo (379AD). All of these early Christian councils stated what books were considered sacred scripture, ie, 46 books ,not 39 Hebrew books. So here you now have Christians at councils who believe in Jesus Christ, worship in and through the Holy Spirit, praising God's Word and finally praying for guidance in what books are considered Holy Scripture. Compare that to a Pharisaical Council of non-believing, Jesus/Christian hating Jews who go so far as to blaspheme Christian teachings and His Word supported by Roman decree and codified with a hate poem sending all Christians to hell. Wow, just read history my friend and you will see why I make such a big stink about what Bible we are reading.

What is also a real mind expander is that it was during these very councils that these spirit filled Christians also codified ALL (did you hear that? ALL NT Books) the NT books accepted by Protestants today. So these Christians had the Holy Spirit guiding them in the NT books but the spirit ran away when they were praying about the OT books! Go figure, that makes sense, huh? Show me the first Protestant council that codified any scripture.

So when I find that the Protestant Bible is a hybridized Hebrew and Greek text and there is significant differences in the worship of God from what was presented as "sacred" to the earliest Christians don't you think one should question it? What are we, Mormons ... feeling it in the bosom of our heart as truth .... or JW, who can not validate their Bible in history?

There is no mention of prayers for the dead in the NT. It is silent. The Greek OT and the Greek Jews (Falashians, too) and Hebrew Jews believed in prayers for the dead .... Catholic Christians believe in prayers for the dead, why don't Protestant Christians? You and others state that there is no mention of Purgatory in the Protestant Bible and that this is a false Christian teaching. Why did the earliest Christians who used the Greek OT and NT believe otherwise from Protestants today?

Don't forget the main thread .... why do Protestants use a hybridized Bible as "sacred" when history does not support this? Is it now a matter of convenience, ignorance, fear of the truth or Catholic prejudice or a combination of all?

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hope you tried to read the prior OT post without throwing up, but "them's the facts". Well, it appears that my Protestant friends can not get a agreed upon definition of "Purgatory", so I guess I need to have another lesson. Therefore, everyone sit down and listen up for a moment.

[Middle English purgatorie, from Old French purgatoire, from Medieval Latin purgatorium, from Late Latin, means of purgation, from neuter of purgatorius, cleansing, from Latin purgare, to cleanse; see purge.] Here we are dealing with that nasty Latin word source stuff, but since we find "purge" in the Protestant Bible maybe some of you can keep your eyes and ears open long enough to see a historical connection.

In 2 Chronicles 34:3 it says "....he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of high places, Asherah poles, carved idols and cast images." The idiolatry (sinful ways) were being purged, pushed out. So to purge sinful ways was certainly a scriptural concept. If you have problem with the word "purge" then argue with your Protestant Bibles because that is where it comes from even though it is from a Latin based word. Therefore, purgation, purgative, purge, purify and purgatory all have base root meanings to "cleanse".

Let me first tell you what Protestants have told me what "they think" Purgatory is. It is a place where Catholics go to have a second chance at salvation. A place for Catholics to realize that they must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (sinner's prayer) or go straight to hell. Purgatory is mentioned, taught or promoted no where in the Bible so it is a false teaching of the devil, therefore, Catholics are of the devil. Now, this is a quick generality. Some of you may agree and some only partially. If you believe in any part of the above concept then you are wrong.

Catholic doctrine does not teach that Purgatory is a place. We have little idea of where it is, how it works or any concept of how time is even involved (if at all). We do know that Scripture states in Rev 21:27 "....nothing unclean will enter it [heaven]...". Purgatory is a change that takes place between death and the entrance into heaven .... a person who dies in God's grace is cleansed of all sin before entering heaven. Any suffering is often described as a realization (how our sins damaged our relationship with God) of our earthly sinful foundations of gold, silver and straw being burned away leaving only righteous works (1 Cor 11-15).

The problem lies again in how we worship and understand God. Protestants (most, not all. I believe that Steve Gregg does not believe this but I will stand corrected, if necessary) believe that once you say the Sinner's Prayer with a contrite heart you are saved once & always saved...regardless of any post-Born Again sin incurred. The problem is how do we know who truly has a contrite heart. Case in point, I have had many conversations with other born-again Christians about born-again Christians who have had after-the-fact crimes (criminals). These crimes (sins) were not peaty things, rather murder, incest, theft, rape ...etc. When I questioned whether these "Christians" would still be going to heaven then nearly, all the time the answer to that was "Well, they never truly accepted [contrite heart] Jesus as their Lord & Savior". That being said, we can truly question every born-again Christian out there as to whether or not they are truly guaranteed heaven because we will never know if they "really" accepted Jesus. Catholics do not take a once saved, always saved attitude, rather a growth in salvation never knowing until the end as Paul states.

Salvation is a growth in acceptance of God's commandments, slowly throwing aside worldly sin that wraps us up daily. We still accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the grace He promises but realize we are still sinful. Should we die in the grace of God (not denied Him or blasphemed the holy spirit), as a believer, a friend in His eyes, God will not allow us to be cast into hell. But God also knows His scripture ..... we die with sin, therefore Rev 21:27 comes to bear down on us with complete scriptural reality. How does a sinfully, unclean believer enter heaven? How does one cleanse or purge this sin from us prior to heaven? Yes, God does grant us His grace, but sin still "covered up" still smells. Try to step into some snow that had recently fallen over a dog's #2 .... what do you have? It's still #2, smelly and ugly but it was conveniently covered up with white snow. Does God want smelly snow in heaven .... your sins simply covered up? No, of course not. Scripture states no sin will enter heaven, so how do you get rid of this sin baggage that God is willing to forgive, but still does not want in heaven stinking up His kingdom? Simple. It is to be cleansed off of you, purged out of you , therefore to do so a state of cleansing, a purgation, will have to occur. Purgatory, a state of sinful cleansing, will occur in those individuals that died in God's grace who still bear sin. Purgatory, a Latin based word with derivations of the word found in Scripture, will occur after death.

"But, Catholic Steve, Chronicles is speaking about purging things from our lives on earth, while we are alive, when we have the choice to accept or decline God. There still is no description of this "purgatory" in scripture." So really what we have here is a problem of accepting any purging of sin after death, correct? There also appears to be a Protestant invention that there is only a heaven and hell, even when this is contraindicated in scripture itself.

First, do not bar the discussion of a concept of purgatory just because there is no explicit description/word of it in scripture. I would assume all Protestant Christians accept the "trinity" or "incarnation". Even though these words are not described explicitly they are described (and accepted by Protestant Christians) implicitly in scripture. Purgatory is also described implicitly. As a base, Rev 21:27 states the standard for entering heaven. Plain and simple this can not be argued unless you are God changing scripture.

There also appears to be a big problem, for Protestants, that there could be a place or a state after an earthly death other than heaven and hell. Can we go to scripture?

Read Phil 2:9-10 .... "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." So here we have believers in "Jesus". We know this because the believers on earth bend at their knee. The believers in heaven also do the same. Wait a minute, who are those "under the earth"? Is there this subterranean Christian complex who have been hiding from the Romans? "Under the earth"....hmmmm...strange language, huh?

Read 1 Peter 3:19 ..... "He [Jesus] was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he [Jesus] went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." So here we have the New Testament Christian writing and times of God describing Jesus' death/resurrection. After Jesus' death He actually goes to a place that is neither heaven or hell, rather a third state described as "prison". Jesus goes and preaches to the spirits there who disobeyed Him but undoubtedly died in the grace of God or he would not have preached to them. Jesus would not go to hell to preach to them because they are doomed for eternity, but He goes to these others to "preach" to them. Why do we "preach" to people? Could it be to accept the Word of Jesus Christ fully and completely? Regardless of what you say, two passages in scripture clearly demonstrate a place or state between heaven and hell, but lets go on, please.

Hey, haven't we heard about this "prison" stuff before in the NT? Heck yes, its right there in Matt 5:2526 "..... Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." So here sins against your brother are to be dealt with or you may be thrown into prison if you don't take of them.

For those of you like Sean who have a rather tepid view of the importance of 39 OT books vs 46 OT books, let's all go find a nice Catholic Bible. Please open it to 2 Macc 12:44-46. The Jews believed this book was an historical account of the Jews, especially Judas Maccabeus who led his men into battle. So even if you did not research and believe my earlier post of the origins of the Christian OT, you need to at least believe what Jews believed/practiced around 165BC. This is an account how God fearing Jews fought a battle and won, unfortunately many of their men died also. When gathering their bodies it was noticed they wore some amulet/idiolatry (2 Chronicles 34:3) around their necks, ie, God may have had them killed in battle. Maccabeus is torn by their belief in God and the amulets.

2 Macc 12:39-46 reads .... " And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

(Of the donaries, etc... That is, of the votive offerings, which had been hung up in the temples of the idols, which they had taken away when they burnt the port of Jamnia, verse 9, contrary to the prohibition of the law, Deuteronomy 7:25. 12:41. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.)

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (No wonder this book was dropped at the Council of jamnia!) For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness (died in God's grace), had great grace laid up for them. With godliness... Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins [purged, purgation].

Oh my gosh, here's a reason the Pharisaical Jews at Jamnia dropped this book and why Protestants went along with using the Hebrew books in their OT Bible ... it simply served their belief system, unfortunately not God's belief system.

So Sean, Homer, TK, Chris, et al..... since I have not heard from you about your concept of Purgatory I hope this helps. Sean, here's proof why the OT books of 39 vs 46 are so important. The earliest Christians recorded documents believed in Purgatory and prayers for the dead that were yet in heaven, but to give you those will only get me in trouble with everyone else. You see, Protestants do not believe in any early Christian writings until 1517 (or about). Maybe the same can be said about you too, who knows.

Many deny history. Many deny scripture. Many deny tradition. Many deny Christ for their conception of Christ. Many deny to their own destruction.

Peace out. Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

You've been busy.

We know what the Diaspora Jews from the pre-political Pharisaical times were reading as sacred OT text.

In this regard, one might be cautious about taking too many cues from diaspora Jews - many of them swimming amidst a heathen flood, far from the land of their covenant, so alienated from their roots that they preferred a biblical text transmogrified into an alien tongue. (Which is not to say that Palestinian Jews of the post-exilic period didn't have their own problems, or that they were not promiscuous in the formation of their canon as well.)

The Falashian Jews (which is a pejorative placed on these Jews by the Hebrews, but they called themselves the "House of God") were reading a Greek collection of OT books as "sacred", so when these Jews were chased/dispersed from Israel they carried with them their traditions and sacred books (which Israel acknowledges today as a LXX Greek OT text, not the Hebrew text).

Again, the historical background of the Ethiopian Jews is murky, and the scenario you claim here cannot be demonstrated. We do not know when or how they came by their text.

We also know that the very orthodox and religious "world is coming to an end" Jewish Essenes who moved to Qumran were preparing for the coming of God (in their lifetime) so you would not exactly be reading comic books, rather sacred OT text, right? Well, we know these book fragments as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other than having one full book of the OT there are fragments of the rest including parts of the Greek LXX OT. If the LXX was not sacred why read it if God is coming....that would be nonsensical.

The Dead Sea Scrolls folks may have been "[very] religious," but calling them "very orthodox" is questionable. Have you read much of their literary remains?

The Scrolls include a raftload of materials besides what is found in the "sacred OT texts" of either Protestants or Catholics. In addition to otherwise unfamiliar apocryphal literature, we find remains of Jubilees and I Enoch, along with forms of texts in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

This begins to go hand-in-hand with the Falashian Jews sacred text.

Well... the Ethiopian Jews apparently kept Jubilees and I Enoch around, too; Jubilees seems to have been quite influential for their religious practice. Maybe this text should be added to your roster?

But if you are going to prefer Christian verdicts, why not follow an Eastern Orthodox collection, with an additional couple of songs and at least one additional book of Ezra? They enjoy a claim to apostolic succession and conciliar legacy. On the other hand, the Ethiopian church parallels the Ethiopian Jews (or is it the other way around?), so maybe Jubilees and I Enoch should have a place after all. But then again, perhaps you might take an example from amongst the Syrian churches, and omit II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation. Why trust a bunch of Hellenists and Latinates when you have the example of those more Semitic churches?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

P.S.: edited once...

[Guest]

Hi Catholic Steve,

I have a question, why catholics call the priest father even though they are not their biological father?

[Guest]

Dear Shlamaa & Paulespino,

Wow, great questions! Where in the heck have you guys been. Will answer you on that more about OT, Falashian Jews, Diaspora .... we are off and running so strap yourselves in .... its goin' to be a bumpy ride.

Paul….please go back a couple of my posts. One from Homer asked the same question. I answered it scripturally and then asked why he calls his a teacher as such when scripture says call no man a teacher, either (still no answer from Homer). Heck, why call your biological Dad a father when scripture tells you not to? The Apostle Paul said “I am your father”, Abraham was referred as “Father” Abraham. What are you getting at?

Are you asking about a word source for “father” in Catholic Christian sense. May I ask you why you call your church leader Pastor or Minister so & so when there is no proof of this in the NT since these are Latin/French based words? You actually should be calling them "Elder" but they would look at you wierd for doing something that scriptural. Read my post.

I’ll get back soon on that earlier post from Shlamaa. Still no one is answering my initial thread about why Protestants use, teach, preach from a hybridized Bible. Shlamaa, you appear to have read a little history. Why not give that a stab. Christ’s Peace, Steve

[Guest]

Dear Emmet,

Please excuse my error in transposing your name "Shlamaa". My mistake. So let's get back to some of your statements. At least someone is reading and studying. You said the following ...

"....one might be cautious about taking too many cues from diaspora Jews - many of them swimming amidst a heathen flood, far from the land of their covenant, so alienated from their roots that they preferred a biblical text transmogrified into an alien tongue.....

.....Again, the historical background of the Ethiopian Jews is murky, and the scenario you claim here cannot be demonstrated. We do not know when or how they came by their text.....
.
...The Dead Sea Scrolls folks may have been "[very] religious," but calling them "very orthodox" is questionable. Have you read much of their literary remains? .....

.....The Scrolls include a raftload of materials besides what is found in the "sacred OT texts" of either Protestants or Catholics. In addition to otherwise unfamiliar apocryphal literature, we find remains of Jubilees and I Enoch, along with forms of texts in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.....

.....But if you are going to prefer Christian verdicts, why not follow an Eastern Orthodox collection, with an additional couple of songs and at least one additional book of Ezra?"

Very good and valid points. Much of my information is from the Jewish Research Library in La Jolla, California often starting with the Jewish encyclopedia and then moving out for additional sources. The information regarding the Falashian Jews comes from the State of Israel that stated in 1975 they were official Jews of the Diaspora. Now you make the assertion that these diaspora Jews had a murky background in a heathen flood... a biblical transmogrified text in an alien tongue. Are you talking about the Hebrew text also since it also has a murky background, suffering the wages of being captives in foreign lands, with foreign religions, foreign tongues....and also have a transmogrified Bible?

The canon guidelines of Jewish Hebrew text is that it is to be 1) in Hebrew, 2) follow the Torah, 3) be before Ezra (400BC) and written from within Palestine. Daniel is partly in Aramaic and some of Daniel is after Ezra. It appears that even the Pharisaical Jews can not stay within their own scripture canon guidelines but because Daniel is so "Jewish" it has to be included in its entirety.

As for the Essenes, I guess your sources are in deep contrast to mine because they are described as very pious religious Jews who set themselves apart from the politics of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Jerusalem. But, lets put that aside for the moment. Heck, lets just say you are 100% correct on your statements. The problem is what you (others?) have ignored is that if your above points are a valid reason [shady Jewish history ?] not equate their Jewish OT texts as sacred, then place those same standards on your Hebrew Texts (that you expound as 100% truth God Breathed). Why not? I have pressed the issue forward over and over about the numerous contradictions in historical judgement of the Hebrew Jews codified OT scripture (completely non-Christian) .... I have demonstrated the very obvious discrepancies in the Protestant OT with hybridized uses of Hebrew and Greek texts simply to support a Protestant stance ...... I bring up Jewish traditions (ie, prayers for the dead), and you question their validity.... yet in the same breath you will gleefully accept the tongue of a Pharisee when Scripture directly warns you to avoid.

You are getting into a very interesting area that forces you to extract historical documents as proof of Protestant positions. That is something I have been doing for some time now only to be ostracized to use documents of the earliest Christians that support Catholic Christian theology. I would love to see what you find about Flavius Josephus and Martin Luther. That would be a mind expander for everyone on this forum.

But, for the moment lets just think about the above threads and get back to the original thread. I do not want to step on any toes by going off in too many areas when the question still is out there .... basically, why are Protestants allowed to use their Bible stating that it is 100% God Breathed truth when it has been demonstrated that the Protestant Bible actually uses parts of the Hebrew OT (39 books) and Greek OT (46 books). This in light of the fact that Protestants state that the Greek OT is not 100% God Breathed truth because Catholics added Apocryphal books, ie, making their OT a bastardized, non-God Breathed conception of truth? Why don't Protestants stand with their Hebrew Jewish brother's Hebrew text as God Breathed truth and accept the Hebrew concept that Mary was not a Virgin when she gave birth to Immanuel "God is with us"?

Anyone have a NIV Study Bible (Zondervan, Edwin Palmer Gen Editor in conjunction with the Inter Bible Society .... a couple of brains in that group) out there? Go to the section "THE TIME BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS". It reads "The Septuagint [Greek LXX] quickly became the Bible of the Jews outside Palestine [did you know at that point more Jews lived outside Israel then inside?] .... It became the Bible of the early Church ...... The canon of the OT accepted by Protestants today was very likely established at the dawn of the Second Century AD .... The precise scope of the OT was discussed among the Jews until the Council of Jamnia (c90). This Hebrew canon was not accepted by the early Church, which used the Septuagint .... During this period [Reformation] most Protestants decided to follow the original Hebrew canon .... "

Amazing! Sounds just like my earlier post, but a little more brief and to the point. Unfortunately, they missed one point. The earlier Protestants "may" have used the original Hebrew canon but since then modern day Protestants do not (reasons stated prior & above).

You can moan and groan why I use a Greek OT text in my Catholic Christian Bible, but at least I can rely on a council of Christians who loved and adored Jesus Christ as their Savior asking the Holy Spirit to guide them, rather than a council of pharisaical Jews that hated Jesus Christ.

"Got Scripture?" Or, do you "Got Hybridized Scripture?" Peace, Catholic Steve