Is it wrong to wonder why God lets good people die when they were young?

Though one can also simply  speculate what His purpose was, yet in the light of our present existence and finite knowledge, it is natural to wonder how God could let such happen, and even how there could be a justifying purpose for this,  but which (as with me) is typically  driven by emotion, versus rational informed thought, and which question or charge is what is not justified.

For it is hardly right and rational to question  (not that I have not) how it can be Right for God to do allow or do anything, when He is uniquely Omniscient, knowing (among all things) the hearts of everyone, as well as all the effects of every single choice, and thus what their life and death would all result in both in this life and for eternity.

And who is also Omnipotent, almighty, and able to make all things work out for the Good of those who love the Good, and which means love God and what He is. (Romans 8:28)

As regards virtuous persons dying, I am reminded of a classic Star Trek episode called “City on the edge of Forever,” in which Kirk and Spock travel back in time to the late 1930’s (in pursuit of a paranoid McCoy, who accidentally had injected himself with an overdose of a dangerous drug, and beamed down to a planet, and jumped thru the "Guardian of Forever" and effected the future, so that the Enterprise itself no longer existed), and Kirk falls in love with soup kitchen pacifist visionary Edith Keeler.

But Spock finds out that McCoy who save her from death, yet that she must die in order to prevent billions of deaths, for she would have influenced the US to delay its entry into WW2, enabling Germany to develop the atomic bomb, and which as a consequence, effectively nuked the existence of the Enterprise.

However, while there, McCoy had caused the death of a no-name drunk, and like as with the Butterfly effect in chaos theory, even that could have had effects, from minimal to profound, which only God knows. As well as the consequences of our own actions or inactions, and sins of commission and of omission.

Of course, seeing God is also omnipotent, it can thus be argued that God can prevent or reverse the negative effects of our choices. And God can and does restrain evil, or else the whole world would be worse than North Korea, while still enabling man to make choices and effect  consequences. And without the ability to choose then we are but clouds, and without alternatives to choose from then “choice” effectively meaningless. And if there are no consequences for our actions then they hardly matter, nor do we.

In any case, a finite human, who cannot even know or determine all the effects of his/her own life for time and for eternity, can hardly stand in judgment of a Being who knows all and makes evil it work out justly, and with mercy and grace, without denying any consequences, for time and for eternity.

And I have no doubt that in the final judgment when all is laid bare, including motives, then there will be no arguing by the damned as to their guilt, even by having chosen to go against the degree of light from God they had (which in essence is rejecting Christ, the Light), and worthiness of their varying degrees of eternal punishment.

Nor will it see boasting for those who did not choose to resist God but by His grace came to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in repentant faith, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus characteristically followed Him in penitent faith.

As for the charge that “the good die young,” the fact is that Biblically no one is without sin, but it is typically those who live reckless lives of sin that mostly die young.

Why do people attack the Bible as promoting religious violence but deny that the Qur'an does so?

Usually because it is not “politically correct.” While many (usually Muslims and “liberals”) bend over backwards to find fault with the Bible, and habitually take things out of context to do so, they may question the premise that the Qur’an exhorts literal physical religious killing or violence, or even deny that it does.

Or they assert it is not really different from the Bible, even to invoking some study that uses the percentage of verses that “could be related to violence,” in each in order to attack the Bible. But which, besides the subjectivity in judging what “could be related to” means, this comparison - even if accurate - simply does not support that the Bible teaches literal physical religious killing or violence (henceforth PRV) for its believers today, for reasons explained below.

For the well-substantiated facts are that the Qur’an clearly commands and or exhorts PRV against adversaries, and, unlike the far, far, far larger Bible (the Qur’an is smaller than just the Christian New Testament), it lacks the context that could justify it, or restrict it to simply being for defensive purposes.

One can see here multitudes of Qur’anic texts on PRV and read a few from my collection here, and so let me briefly deal with some the basic differences between the Bible and the Qur’an.

• The Bible, with nearly 800,000 verses, provides extensive historically narratives in which its examples and commands of physical religious warfare overall exist, thus providing context. Whereby we see that:
• Commands to PRV were preceded by God making it supernaturally unmistakably certain that He was real, and was the one giving the commands. And which means (besides being the giver of life, and the only omniscient and omnipotent being who knows both the hearts or the people and the immediate and eternal consequences of their life and death, and can make it all work out for just purposes, cannot be judged for what He commands) that their commanded wars of conquest (as under Joshua) were not the results of some mere dream.
• These commands were limited to certain people and thus geographic areas, versus world wide jihad against all unbelievers who in some sense opposed them.
• Not all the the Bible records as examples means that God commanded it, which context determines.
• The Old Testament/Covenant promised as New Testament/Covenant, which was distinctly said would be Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.(Jeremiah 31:32)

And under which Covenant it was revealed that there would no longer be a physical kingdom, and thus its subjects would be using physical means of warfare to defend the faith and for the purpose of subduing those who attacked that faith. (Jn. 18:36; Eph. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:3,4) and with nonretaliation (physically) to personal attacks being enjoined.

Thus we have zero examples or commands to PRV in the New Testament, and the only religious violence therein is by supernatural means.

In contrast:

• The Qur’an is basically a series of disjointed monologue statements from the god of Islam to Muhammad, and it overall lack the historical and or doctrinal context to determine their meaning, specific applicability and scope. As the Qur’an overall lacks this context then readers must be educated in how scholars interpret such, but in which there is conflict. And the lack of context can allow commands for PRV to warfare against ideological enemies, not simply physical ones.

Islamic scholar Aga Mahdi Puya is quoted as stating,
"Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him.. or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims."

• The commands to PRV in the Qur’an were not preceded by God supernaturally making it unmistakably certain that He was real, and was the one giving the commands. Instead, Muhammad began to have dreams, concerning which some tradition conveys that he was worried at first that they may be from the devil.
• The Qur’anic commands to PRV were not manifestly limited to certain people and thus geographic areas, versus world wide jihad against all unbelievers who in some sense opposed them.
• There is no new covenant in Islam, and while there are some brief quotes advocating tolerance, it is understood that these came from Muhammad's pre-Medenic suras when he was a minority in Mecca. Initially when he was weak (before Medina) he allowed more of peaceful co-existence by ways of treaties, etc., but when he gained power he progressively sought to enlarge his kingdom by force. History thus indicates that Muhammad's theology adapted to his needs.

Therefore there is no reason to not call out the hatred and violence in the Koran, or at least not if you are going to attack the Bible as promoting the same to its believers today.

But  there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47

Heresies and errors of Linwood Jackson Jr, exposed

Linwood Jackson Jr., Author, lives in Massachusetts, author of many books who was advertised on WEZE, a Salem Broadcasting station which has been of overall decreasing quality, and which has often been rather doctrinally abberant as to what they air, most recently under a manifestly femist manager.

Below are the some of the results of an examination of teaching by Linwood Jackson Jr. on his posts on Quora which reveals him to clearly be a severely aberrant teacher under the guise of resorting Christianity.  I am rather used to dealing with diverse false teachings, but I have never found a poster who is so adept at mixing Truth with fundamental error, and profusely enlisting/wresting/abusin Scripture texts in order to support his heterodox (some rather novel) and heretical perversions of what Scripture  actually, contextually teaches, along with frequent use of strawmen (false descriptions of doctrine he replaces with his own) in order to do so.

Mainly what i found in a short time of searching was  not simply reproof of  Roman Catholicism, and of superficial faith, both of which are warranted, but among other errors is that of Jackson:

• Relegating Christianity as a whole to be pagan, with  Christianity as a whole having apostatized from 40 A.D.;
• Denying  the Biblical Deity of Christ, being God by nature even though the the Father is the Head;
• Denying  the literal Biblical physical incarnation of Christ;
  
• Denying actual water baptism;
  
• Likely denying  of  a real lake of fire in which the lost suffer torment "“Heaven” is no sensual place to find yourself after death; such a place does not exist, along with its strange counterpart...David is as much with us today as he was with Peter and that congregation in that day.");
•  Describing being born again as  Jesus Christ  coming  into the mind of the flesh, upgrading the heart to Jackson's doctrine of, among others things,   the denial of the deity of Christ and and from worship on Sunday to keeping the the day Sabbath;
•  Making the keeping of the 7th day sabbath  required obedience. 
• And that “there are only ten transgressions to commit against God, for He gave ten “and he added no more." 

Linwood Jackson Jr, Author, (excerpts from his Quora feed - later evidently deleted - and the bold emphasis is mine throughout:

What should be true if Christianity is false?

What should be true if Christianity is false is your heart. Christianity, ancient and modern, is not Bible religion. 319AD Christianity was sealed by Constantine as the religion that we know today, but as early as 40AD the Christian church had apostatized from the religion of the first apostles, which was the religion of God’s Anointed,..

 

True Christianity should be an investigation of the mind of the Bible’s God concerning the will that He has for Adam. This will is revealed by the regeneration, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and high priestly appointment of His High Priest, that Christ, but modern, and ancient Christianity, goes no further than a resurrection of God’s Man, ignoring the fact that it was “God the Father, who raised him from the dead,” Galatians 1:1. ..

There is no other God beside the LORD; “God is the LORD,” Psalm 118:27...“Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son,” Hebrews 5:5. The word “Son” has absolutely no literal or genetic relation to God, but simply means “servant” or “minister” or “priest.” Such a steward is related to God only by their inward devotion, and because it is counseled, “Worship God in the spirit,” Philippians 3:3, concerning God’s Man it says, “The last Adam was made a quickening spirit,” 1 Corinthians 15:45....

It is well to understand what God’s Man is Lord of, because He is not that LORD of heaven and earth, but is Lord, or Keeper, or Governor of some thing...

Without the LORD we observe a religion that needs human flesh to give it life, which is why Christian apostasy eventually violated the seventh day for a manner celebrating a feast contrary to resurrection...

This Christ is that King of the LORD’s Church; His domain is strictly ecclesiastical...

there is a mission on earth and in heaven that must be accomplished. That mission on earth is complete. This mission was to finalize the LORD His Father’s will, which was to reconcile the throne and Spirit of God with the soul and spirit of Adam...

An empty resurrection from an empty source is all that modern and ancient Christianity can portray, because it can go no higher on the earth, being inordinately covetous.

If Jesus Christ existed, who was the 'actual' father?

Linwood Jackson Jr, Author

The language used in Scripture concerning the “father” and the “son” is not, and should not be taken literally. We may understand this from how it says, “To Titus, mine own son after the common faith,” Titus 1:4, and, “Timothy, my own son in the faith,” 1 Timothy 1:2, and, “As a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel,” Philippians 2:22. In every case, the relationship between the “son” and his “father” is not legitimate, like as between literal blood, but is wholly spiritual, like as a head religious advisor to his pupil..

There is no such thing as God impregnating human flesh; not only is this carnal and sensual, according to the God of the Bible, it is irrational and illogical. .

When hearing of a “child of the Holy Ghost,” it is well to know that since the Spirit only labors within the spirit of the mind, that the record is referencing a human being fully converted to the religion of “the LORD of the Hebrews,”..

Herein it is appropriate to mention that the “child” of the Holy Ghost, as Matthew records, is no literal little male boy. A “son” is a “child,” wherefore it is written, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” Isaiah 9:6....

There is no such thing as a human being mixed with any superstitious form of “divinity.” It would make no sense for the LORD to offer and accept a sacrifice of a man born of some divine Greco-Roman superstitious nature. We have to take into account that “a man hath no preeminence above a beast,” Ecclesiastes 3:19. “Being found in fashion as a man,” Philippians 2:8, is being found in fashion as a beast, which in, in all actuality, trash.

If we are saying that divinity sensually mixed with humanity to make this man God, then we are confessing, in our speech, to the fact that this God is lame, useless, without any power, low in intelligence, and is therefore nonexistent, and He is. Such a fraudulent deity says, “I am God, I sit in the seat of God,” Ezekiel 28:2, for he “would trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ,” Galatians 1:7. Such a counterfeit doctrine would have its adherent forget how it is written, “I am the LORD, and there is none else,” Isaiah 45:6, and, “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any,” Isaiah 44:8.

Because “God is the LORD,” Psalm 118:27, the Jesus of popular theology comes under strict scrutiny by that “high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty,” Hebrews 8:1. The religion of the Bible says of God’s Priest, “He shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of his God,” Micah 5:4, letting us know that this Man not only upheld His course in and still remains in flesh; “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” Luke 24:39, He today says; and that He is not that LORD or God of the Bible, but that His ministry is devoted to the only living LORD God for every willing spirit, to the end they too may have it said of them, “The Word was made flesh,” John 1:4, making the knowledge of His mediation that supreme authority to bring every soul to His God’s throne.

When we hear, “The Word was made flesh,” John 1:14, it is well to remember that the “Word” is “the Word of life,” 1 John 1:1, and that “the Spirit is life,” Romans 8:10. The Word made flesh is the Spirit made flesh, and the Spirit of the LORD is a law or commandment, as it says, “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue,” 2 Samuel 23:2. The Word made flesh, being the Spirit made flesh, is “the law of the Spirit of life” made flesh, Romans 8:2..

In the context in which John writes, we may understand that “Jesus Christ” is no reference to any man, but to a commandment existing within the spirit and proceeding from the heart,...

God’s Man experienced this birth from His LORD’s Spirit by brining into His understanding His Spirit’s commandment, and this commandment is the foundation of David’s religion,..

This should sound familiar, because Mary was told, “The Lord is with thee,” Luke 1:28. This woman received the ancient doctrine of the LORD her God, and by this doctrine, she was to raise up a “son” who would establish its reality for every spirit on earth willing to elevate their faith into the heavenly Sanctuary for its completion...

This woman had to mentally digest the Spirit’s doctrine if she should ever receive His power, for we are “to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man,” Ephesians 3:16. We understand that she did just this because she says, “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” Luke 1:47. The “power” of God is not, and cannot mingle with flesh; “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” John 3:6.

Thus, our perception of this woman, and of the events here mentioned, take a turn when understanding that no thing here spoken of is literal. A “woman,” in Scripture, is figurative language denoting a church,..

There is no perverse record of the LORD interacting with flesh, but we read, “The angel came in unto her,” Luke 1:28. It was an “angel” that cast into the spirit of a church called Mary the power and wisdom of the LORD’s holy Spirit, and an “angel” is, in the Bible, language representing a human messenger of God’s Faith, as it says, “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire,” Psalm 104:4.

What really occurred to this woman was the impression of a spirit upon her conscience, which impression conceived and brought up one young in years of faith within her bowels. This young man, being already a human being, and no thing more or less “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Romans 8:3, picked up this understanding to know the name that He should take and the mission that He should fulfill. ..

While only human flesh, His baptism to His LORD is no different than ours to that same LORD...

His “father” was David’s doctrine, which doctrine led Him to David’s God for the baptism of the Spirit of that God,

“. There are only ten transgressions to commit against God, for He gave ten “and he added no more,” Deuteronomy 5:22.”

What is a born-again Christian?

Linwood Jackson Jr, Author,

A true Christian is an individual reconstructed within their mental and moral faculties to honor every commandment of God without any conflict or reproach of heart, which modern and ancient Christians failed to do, which failure is represented by a rejection of the fourth commandment (the seventh-day Sabbath), for a spurious sabbath, a first-day devotion to the Roman god of the sun...

Pagan people, or Gentiles, at this time in Paul’s day, honored Roman religion, which religion celebrated the god of the sun on the same Roman first day of the week as ours is in North America, Sunday. When there is an acceptance of Christ, a new mind is born, and this new mind puts away old former religious habits and tendencies..

The Christ of the Bible’s God, and the living religion of the Bible, is based upon the fact that “Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son,” Hebrews 5:5....

“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5.

This confession by Paul is the state of a living Christian’s mind. To such an individual, there is an acknowledgment of the God of the Bible, “the LORD God of the Hebrews,” Exodus 3:18, “the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,” Genesis 14:22, and the Chief Representative of mankind standing in the direct presence of the living God. ..

“Heaven” is no sensual place to find yourself after death; such a place does not exist, along with its strange counterpart.

What does it mean when the Bible says “King of kings”? Who are the kings then?

Christ is therefore a Minister of the LORD, and if this Minister is our Minister, the LORD His God will also be our God, for what priest, unless fraudulent, will call himself the god his congregation?...

What are some of the key similarities and differences between Catholicism and the ancient Roman religion?

Linwood Jackson Jr, Author

There is no difference between Catholicism, or Christianity as a whole, and the ancient Roman religion...

The book of the Revelation is written for the churches of Asia. “Asia” is no literal location because no vision is literally construed,..

We pick up at Pagan Rome: “He magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” Daniel 8:11

This phrase “taken away” does not mean to remove, as in the sense of taking trash out of the house, but in Hebrew it means to exalt, to magnify. The “daily sacrifice,” in short, is a term used to reference the pagan religion that began in Babylon and found itself inherited by the Romans...

The passing away of the flesh of the living God’s Man on the tree; or the cross; signified the passing away of such flesh-based or pagan ordinances, such as baptisms by water,...

they reverted to a dark understanding that inevitably became darker under Constantine, who is the creator of Christianity...

Rome’s system of paganism was not taken away, but was magnified within the Christian religion,..and the location for Constantine’s religion was Asia, and he called this location for his religion Constantinople...

we are made to observe seven churches in Asia, which are not literal churches, but are the character, or the nature, of the specific age that the churches born from that church in Asia should pass through....

We begin in Eph’esus because, at this point in early church history, Christian elders were, while the first apostles were alive, worshipping that “image” and religion fallen out from Jupiter,...

At the time Matthew was written, along with the other three companion books, it was at a time when Christians were removing from the original seventh day’s Sabbath to the Roman first day, for they had admitted into their religion pagan Greek and Roman ethics. ...

Roman paganism is linked to their sun god and their sun-day (Sunday) feast; the pagan Religion of Rome will for ever find itself acknowledged by its sun-day feast, despite what name it should go by. And by the foundation of Diana, who is today “Mary,” and their translating the name of Jupiter’s son to “Jesus,” this cult removed from the apostles right understanding and began to fulfill the saying, “They return, but not to the most High,” Hosea 7:16,

Is born again and being saved the same thing?

We learn what to be “saved” from through the illustration of the living God’s man on the tree,...What is hanged on the tree is not to be thought of as a literal man, but the “flesh” of the man represents what is accursed,...

What is to be “saved,” because this act on the tree is for the personal religious conversation, is the mind and conscience of the religious conversation,...

Therefore, for example, when we hear of a religious law concerning a first-day or third-day sabbath, we may understand that because it is not that Sabbath of creation, it is a handwritten religious ethic. ..the doctrine of his first-day, or Sunday sabbath, is but a nonexistent entity; the living God abolished the philosophy of the religious law from His Faith..

when one is “born again,” the conversation’s conscience is enlightened to its course with “sin”;..

Being free from that religious error nailed to the tree, the mind may now experience the benevolence ordained for it, and this is the living God’s salvation,

Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics

Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics

• Within official teachings:

1. Where unbaptized babies go if and when they die?
2. Geocentricity or Heliocentricity
3. Whether Trent closed the canon or not
4. Whether canonizations are or always infallible.
5. Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.
6. What the church Fathers meant in many cases.
7. How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.
8. What multitudes of Scripture verses mean.
9. The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).
10. The official immutable position on many theological issues.
11. The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.
12. The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.
13. How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are
14. What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.
15. How many magisterial levels there are.
16. What required assent to official teachings all entails.
17. The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.
18. How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.
19. Whether the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and what they entail.
20. Whether or not a pope can be deposed.
21. How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
22. Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
23. Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery

• Partial List Of Implicitly Sanctioned Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics outside official teachings. 

• Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox

Meanwhile, those who testify to most strongly holding to Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basically literal conveyance (as in historical accounts, unlike so much modern RC scholarship), testify to being the most unified in many basic beliefs. ​

In stark contrast to those overall whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

Thus based upon facts and the Biblical criteria for determining belief, (James 2:18) the RCC cannot be one in belief, while as for being the one true NT church, Catholic distinctives are simply not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Therefore some  Catholics   essentially argue that in any conflict, Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she says - if she does say so herself.

In contrast to which is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.  which  distinctive Catholic are not manifest.  See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html  by God's grace.
 

Refuting Catholic Answers: "How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals"

Refuting Catholic Answers How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals)

• God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents.

Neither has Rome, thus the distinction CA attempts to make here is negated.

• They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order).

Which tripartite canon is what we see being referred to in the Lord's instruction to His disciples in Luke 24:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

Which is understood as being the Palestinian canon held to by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and which the ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus numbered as 22 books, and which is understood as correspondent to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works.

Answering the charges of an anti-Semite named Apion at the end of the first century A.D., Josephus says:

“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)

"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348

Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

And which means that the 39 book Protestant canon is more ancient than that of Rome's, as it corresponds to a ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century, and which is affirmed in Catholic scholarship:

“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.
Not yet universally closed, yes, but which was also the case for most of Rome's history, yet nor is the canon universally settled today in all that is called Christianity.

• In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

Which is is simply ignorance and or erroneous or dubious (at best) statements deceptively presented as facts. For this claim presumes that the Septuagint contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states,

Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

It is understood that manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; Triablogue: The legendary Alexandrian canon)

Edward Earle Ellis attests,
“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Gleason Archer states,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; What are the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha?)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes,

“Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

• When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh.

This also indicates ignorance. As WP documents, The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited.[3] (Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia) Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[28]

Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty.[5]
(Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia)

• If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

Which is simply deceptive, for while there was also variant views as there are today on many things, the manifest reality is that an authoritative body (canon) of wholly inspired writings had been established by the time of Christ, and without an infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes is essential for ascertaining that is of God.

Therefore the Lord and disciples repeatedly quoted from, referenced, and referred them and others to the Scriptures as authoritative, (Matthew 21:42; 26:54,56; Mark 14:49) including reading from one of the established books in the synagogue as Scripture, (Luke 4:21) and men such as Paul reasoned with Jews likewise "from the Scriptures," and men "searched the Scriptures" in order to ascertain his veracity, (Acts 17:2,11) and there were souls who were "mighty in the Scriptures," (Acts 18:34,28) and the Lord substantiated His mission to the disciples by the Scriptures (as a tripartite canon), and opened their minds to the understanding "of the Scriptures." (Luke 24:44,45)

Yet Catholics argu that there was no authoritative canon of sacred writings! And note that those who sat in the seat of Moses, whom the Lord enjoined conditional (only Scriptural) obedience to, (Mt. 23:2) never made the canonical status of the Scriptures the Lord and His prima NT church invoked as issue, this implicitly affirming there accepted status.

• At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

None of which were ecumenical councils that settled the canon so that disagreement was disallowed. Thus as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

• Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent...
they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Which is more deception, for the issue is not whether the Deuteros can be read, but the canonical status of them. And as they are were not considered canonical, Luther translated them but placed them in a separate section, as did typical Protestant Bibles, as per an ancient tradition. Thus it is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not the books as Scripture, while Protestants followed the more ancient canon, out of which the NT shows Lord referenced writings as authoritative Scripture.

• Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed "the certain, main books of the New Testament."

Which was nothing novel or unCatholic, for in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries, and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, and which did not determine the canon for Protestantism.

• In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole.

And since the canon had not been settled then Eck had a problem which would not be rectified until after the death of Luther. Likewise, Luther's position on the canon could not be made a damnable issue, as it is with later Catholicism, until after Trent.

• Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life."

Even contemporary news can be referenced in Scripture, (Luke 13:1-3) which does not mean it is the latter, but, in contrast to the basis for Catholic oral tradition being the word of God, affirmation of such by inspired Scripture surely means it is true. And in contrast to canonical writings, the deuteros (Apocrypha) were never referred to as scripture as in "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39) and to Sadducees Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29) or "It is written."(Mt. 4:4)

• "Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.

Which is a repetition of the deceptive statement which was dealt with earlier.

• Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books.The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Which presumption would logically mean that first century souls had no other assurance that the books of Moses were the true word of God," yet the manifestly did! And rather than the historical magisterium infallibly indisputably defining what and who was of God, the church began with common souls assuredly ascertaining that both men (such as the prohets and John the baptizer: "for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) and writings were of God. (John 7:40-42)

So much for the presumption of Rome with her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

• One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which is simply a reiteration of ignorance dealt with before, as well as pure propagada, For the fact is that the church of Rome (nor the EOs, if less aberrant) cannot claim to be the one true and apostolic church, since distinctive Catholic are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

• Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Which helps the RC argument how? The Catholic logic is that if one is indebted to Catholicism for the Bible then it means acknowledging and submitting to Catholicism as being the infallible authority on what it consists of and means.

However, this logically means that first century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Note also that whenever you see a Catholic quote Luther as this one , one should avail the research of James Swan a site search (site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com "We are obliged to yield many things" ..).

Thus once again the sophistry of (money-begging) Catholic Answers is once again exposed, but the grace of God.

Facts and testimony that Catholic apologists typically will not give you about Luther and the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha):

Facts and testimony that Catholic apologists typically will not give you about Luther and the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha):

1. There was no indisputable (“infallible”) definition of the entire Catholic canon of Scripture for most of Catholic history, and until after the death of Martin Luther in 1546, and who, along with other scholars, was at liberty to doubt or disagree on the contents of the canon.

2. The apocryphal books, referred to in Catholicism as the Deuterocanonical books (Deuteros for short) were subjects of scholarly doubts and disagreements down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first “infallible”) definition of the entire Catholic canon of Scripture for Catholics. Catholisc such as Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus , Jerome etc., relegated the deuteros to inferior rank, not being Scripture proper, and thus fit for "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church"(Jerome), but yet edifying literature, which could be sometimes cited as scripture.

• Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) even exhorted his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages, In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (Canon of the Old Testament) ^

3. With the above as support, Luther included (most of) the deuteros in his translation of the Bible, but together as a separate section, as per an ancient practice. And sometimes quoted from within it.

4. The Eastern Orthodox churches do not fully agree with the canon of Trent.

5. The Palestinian canon of the time of Christ is though to have been restricted to 22 books, which correspond (due to 2 books being counted as one) to the 39 book Protestant canon, and that its tripartite division Christ referred to in Luke 24:44.

6. For many reasons it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha. There is no extant copy of the Septuagint from time of Christ, and the evidence indicates it did not contain the deuteros.

7. The idea of the Jewish canon being set at a council of Jamnia is dubious.

8. The Dead Sea Scrolls “included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_...

9. Long before a church presumed it was essential for ascertaining what (men and writings) was of God, common God-fearing Jews rightly did so, and thus the church began with such doing so.

10. The establishment of inspired writings of God as being so is not due to conciliar decrees, as helpful as they can be, but is essentially due to the Divine qualities and attestation of such by people free to choose.

11. Luther (who also doubted Revelation, for one) did not set the canon for Protestants.

12. The OT Protestants canon is more ancient than that of Catholicism, canon, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament.

13. In contrast to the Catholic claim of extraScriptural wholly inspired revelation preserved in oral tradition, and which is made equal to that which is written (as decreed by non-inspired men, who are effectively the supreme authority), writing is God's manifest means of long term reliable authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; Exodus 34:27; Deuteronomy 10:4; Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 27:3; Deuteronomy 31:24; 2 Kings 22:10-13; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23; John 20:31; Revelation 20:12, etc.)

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)

14. Unlike writings in the Protestant OT canon, the NT never quotes from Deuterocanonical books as being "Scripture," or terms such as "it is written," "Moses said" which denote inspired authority. It is thought that the NT references to Scripture are affirming a Palestinian canon, which tripartite canon the Lord is seen referring to in Luke 24:44,45, which He calls Scriptures.

15. The word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced.

Can Catholics who are vegans eat the Eucharist?

That depends upon how you define “meat,” and what you believe. For despite Catholic claims of taking Scripture literally as regards the Lord’s supper, and speaking of the Catholic Eucharist as being the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) with bread and wine having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being “corporeally present whole and entire in His physical ‘reality.’” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) the fact is that in Catholic Eucharistic theology “this is My body…blood” is not taken purely literally.

The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh.” (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")

For “this is My body…blood” to be taken purely literally would mean that the apostles at the Lord’s supper would have indeed be consuming the same literal, manifestly incarnated body and blood of Christ that was crucified, which manifest physicality is stressed in Scripture, in opposition to a Docetist-type Christ who is materially not what He appears to be. (1 John 1:1-3)

Instead, akin to the latter Christ, if not precisely, the Christ of the Catholic Eucharist materially appears to be what He is not, that of ordinary unleavened bread and alcoholic wine. "The Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn’t (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn’t." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)

But which bread and wine themselves are held as no longer existing when the priest utters the word of consecration “this is My body….blood.”

"Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine." - Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 2003

Meaning that the point of Catholic sacerdotal priestly consecration (which office is itself not Scriptural) it is to be believed by Catholics that "true body" of Christ is present under a "new mode of being, " that the invisible substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. That at consecration the substance of the bread and wine is changed during the Eucharistic consecration into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains, with the "accidents" [a philosophical term referring to appearance] of the bread and wine replacing the accidents of Christ’s body: his tissues, bones, and cells. Thus "While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence." (http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html)

Which is to be believed even though the Eucharistic species still looks, feels, behaves, and would taste and test as actual bread and wine, and thus such decays even though it is said to no longer exist.

At which point the body and blood of Christ are no longer said to be present as the Eucharist either.

(CCC 1377: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." ibid, Mulcahy, p. 32)

A t which point it seems that neither the decaying bread or wine nor the body and blood of Christ really exist in that time and place. (Summa Theologiae, Question 77)

Therefore, according to both Eucharistic theology as well as scientific testing a vegan would not be consuming the same literal manifestly incarnated body and blood of Christ that was crucified. And also, according to the same evidence of physicality that would prove the Son of God was incarnated, then the bread and wine are just that, and actually exist after consecration, and thus both decay as well as being a problem for some persons with celiac disease, an immune reaction to eating gluten, and the Catholic church forbids gluten-free wafers (though low-gluten wafers can be allowed by the local bishop, as well as for low-alcohol wine).

However, in contrast to the Catholic metaphysical contrivance of the Lord’s supper, the Scriptural understanding of this ordinance is metaphorical, in which the members show/proclaim the Lord’s death for them until He returns by sharing food with others whom Christ purchased with His sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28; 1 Co. 11:17–34) Thereby effectually remembering His death for them, and showing the unity with Him and each other (as being “one bread” themselves: 1 Co. 10:17).

And thus to eat independently to the neglect of others is to actually not come together to eat the Lord’s supper, and is that of not recognizing the body of Christ as being the church. As explained in 1Cor. 10,11