Miles ridden: 612.89 (record in one month, at least since I got back into cycling in 2005---I can't find my 93-98 ride files to compare).
Total ascent for the month: 27,846 ft. (8,488m, 5.27 miles) (record)
Longest week total: 175 miles (record)

Protestant apologists focus on the fact that twenty-two books are described as having been canonized; making up, as they would argue, an exhaustive list since Athanasius seems to insist that "in these [books] alone, the Christian doctrine is taught." The great fourth century champion, therefore has been shown to have accepted the Protestant canon, and consigned everything outside that canon to the category of human apocrypha. This argument errs on a number of points.

Most obviously, the books Athansius listed as "canonical" do not correspond to the Protestant canon; he places the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah among the 'canon,' but deliberately omits the book of Esther from the list and places it among those that are read. This canon, in fact, is unique to Athanasius himself; no other writer uses it and all other Christians canons, then and now, differ from it"[Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 108-109. Emphasis in the original].

It should be noted though, that following the Septuagint, many [Eastern fathers] included Septuagint 1 Esdras with Ezra-Nehemiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah and Baruch with Jeremiah and Bel and the Dragon, The Song of the Three Children and Susanna as additions to the book of Daniel [William Webster, Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume II, (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001) p.340].

The other two additions to the Greek text of Daniel besides the Song of the Three Holy Children, namely, Susanna and Bel & the Dragon, are more self-contained and usually carry their own subtitles. They were probably once independent. Indeed, the latter addition, in the original Septuagint, even begins by naming a source, 'From the prophecy of Habakkuk the son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi' suggesting that it may have originated in an apocryphal work under the name of Habakkuk. Nevertheless, in the Septuagint version the two additions have become a thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Daniel, while in the other Greek version used in the early church they form a first and last chapter. As the Jewish translator responsible for this latter version, Theodotion, included them in the revision of the Septuagint which is what his translation was, although he apparently omitted the independent apocryphal books, they had probably already been appended to Greek Daniel in the Jewish period. It is therefore not surprising that Irenaeus can quote Susanna with the expression 'Those words which come from Daniel the 'Prophet' (Against Heresies 4.26.3), or that Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.21, or 1.123.3f.) and Tertullian (On Idolatry 17-18, On Fasting 7) can pass straight from the events of the earlier part of Daniel to those of Bel and the Dragon, as belonging to the same historical sequence. Hippolytus, likewise, in his Commentary on Daniel, expounds Susanna as the opening part of the book, and at least makes reference to Bel & the Dragon, though without actually expounding it (Commentary 2.26). Even the Syrian expositor Polychronius, who declines to expound the Song of the Three, includes in his Commentary on Daniel an exposition of Bel & the Dragon, as its final item. In the Syriac Bible, known to Polychronius, Susanna often gets separated from Daniel and Bel, but in the Greek and Old Latin Bibles, and among most of the Fathers who use them, both these additions are treated as if they were part of the text of Daniel, without the canonical question being raised. And even when it is first raised, by Julius Africanus in his Letter to Origen, he receives an answer which prevents it being raised again until the end of the fourth century.

(viii) Just as apocryphal items were appended (or prefixed) to LXX Daniel, so the same was done to LXX Jeremiah. Here there was also a canonical appendix, Lamentations, which in the Greek Bible is preceded by Baruch and followed by the Epistle of Jeremy, while in the Latin Bible it is followed by Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy combined in one, in the form in which they stand in the English Apocrypha. There is reason to think that, as in the case of Daniel, the Septuagint appendices had at least begun to be added in the Jewish period; and, as in the case of Daniel once more, this was presumably done for the same purposes of edification as motivated the midrashic expansions included in some books of the Septuagint within their text. We consequently find early Greek Fathers regarding Baruch as part of Jeremiah, and frequently quoting it under Jeremiah?s own name, and early Latin Fathers doing the same. So here again it is less a question of canonicity that confronts us than a question of the text. What has happened is that edifying additions have been made to the translated text of Jeremiah, as to that of Daniel, which do not really pretend to the same authority, but are bound before long to be treated as if they did, by readers unacquainted with the original. [Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 340-342].

Neither Jerome (see Michuta, p. 148-152, and chapter 4), nor Athanasius, are clear opponents of the Deuterocanon. Both of them, especially Athanasius, cited books of the Deuterocanon as Scripture, a detail that supports the pro-Deuterocanon position.

I'm also glad you think Michuta's book is the best on the subject so far. I would agree, no doubt for different reasons than you, but all the same.

Jerome's conversion to 'the Hebrew verity' [i.e. in contrast to the LXX] carried with it an important corollary - his acceptance also of the Hebrew canon, or list of books properly belonging to the Old Testament. Since the early Church had read its Old Testament in Greek, it had taken over without question the so-called Alexandrian canon used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. This had included those books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc.) which are variously described as deutero-canonical or as the Apocrypha. Around the end of the first century, however, official Judaism had formally excluded these, limiting the canon to the books which figure in English Bibles as the Old Testament proper. Since Origen's time it had been recognised that there was a distinction between the Jewish canon and the list acknowledged by Christians, but most writers preferred to place the popular and widely used deutero-canonical books in a special category (e.g. calling them 'ecclesiastical') rather than to discard them. Jerome now takes a much firmer line. After enumerating the 'twenty-two' (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned 'apocryphal': 'They are not in the canon.' Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely 'for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical'. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life - in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. Again what chiefly moved him was the embarrassment he felt at having to argue with Jews on the basis of books which they rejected or even (e.g. the stories of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon) found frankly ridiculous. [J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161].

The name Isa occurs twenty-five times in the Qur'an, and the use of other titles in conjunction with this or separately, such as Messiah and Son of Mary, means that Jesus is spoken of some thirty-five times….The bare enumeration of the references to Jesus by one of his names in the Qur'an does not show, of course, the difference between passing allusions and longer narratives in which Jesus is the central figure. (18, 20).

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).

I didn't waste my time with his show. Actually the truth is I don't know how to access his show but if I did I would not waste my time with it. I can only imagine what he said or thinks about me after my posts on this thread. Be it known that my intent was not mean spirited but rather my discernment was that tactics employed by James White are not christian like. To make a statement, like another poster reported that he did, wherein he claimed that all Catholics are biased is ludicrous. Over 1.1 billion Catholics in the world and everyone of them is biased against James White. I take that to mean that Catholics don't see things his way

Let me start with the state of Catholic apologetics today. Overall, I think it is good, at least compared to what it was about 25 years ago when Catholic apologetics was practically non-existent. But I think it could be much better today if we all banded together and used each other gifts and talents instead of competing with one another.

We each have our gifts, strengths and focus. I think God is using us all, but I think He would like to see us all get along much better than we have, and that is what all three groups need to pray for.

we were deeply concerned about some of its final conclusions. We believe some of these conclusions to be not only dubious in and of themselves, but an assault on the individual Catholic's conscience and the Church's collective power to reform society as a whole [source].

To Whom It May Concern:

“I am familiar with the slanderous charges that have been made against Dr. Ergun Caner generated by some Muslim groups and other extremists. I have looked into the matter, talking with Ergun and other principal parties at Liberty, and am convinced that the charges are libelous. I am also convinced that whatever ambiguous or misstatement that may have been made, Dr. Caner has done nothing heretical, immoral, or illegal. I stand with him against these vicious attacks. He has taken a strong stand on important issues that stir up controversy, but to my knowledge has done nothing unorthodox or malicious. I urge all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty. He has welcomed an inquiry from the Liberty authorities. Let’s await their findings. Christians have a bad habit of shooting their wounded. Let’s pray for and encourage our brother.”

Sincerely in Christ,

Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Message: Listen jack*** if you are going to quote my facebook entry USE MY NAME and quote me in context! I'm nobody with nothing to lose. I don;t have to worry about what the SBC thinks like the gracious Dr. Caner does. My South Philly upbringing and my righteous indignation coupled with my detest for frauds like you would not hinder me in the LEAST from showing up at your next public appearance and sticking a boot in your a****. You sicken me, you harm the body, and you offend the Spirit of the God you claim to serve but are wholly unfamiliar with, except on dusty pages of endless technical theology that you have likely not ONCE seen in real, God-breathed action. Your veil is thin, my arrogant reformer friend. You should sign all your writings "Mrs. Turpin"

So, did a fight over Calvinism lead to the questions about Caner’s background? That certainly seems to be a possibility. A fascinating one, too, although if Caner truly has fabricated his background, his theological leanings may not make a lot of difference at this point.

Convert brothers take heat for message that Islam is hardly a peaceful faith

BYLINE: By ALLEN G. BREED, Associated Press Writer

SECTION: Domestic News

LENGTH: 1408 words

Ergun and Emir Caner sat in the cavernous domed stadium with hundreds of other preachers in St. Louis and listened intently as the Rev. Jerry Vines thundered about the difference between Christianity and Islam.

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-posessed pedophile who had 12 wives - and his last one was a 9-year-old girl," the Florida minister shouted to attendees at the pastors conference of the Southern Baptist Convention.

"And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people."

When angry Muslims confronted the former SBC president about his remarks last month, Vines said he was merely citing their own texts - as quoted in the Caner brothers' book, "Unveiling Islam."

The Caners intended the book as a tool for Christians seeking to reach out to Muslims. Instead, the brothers, who converted to Christianity as teen-agers, have been vilified by many prominent Islamic groups as hostile, sick and hateful. In recent weeks, they received what Emir considers threatening inquiries from overseas.

"Our whole purpose was an act of love," says Ergun Caner, a Southern Baptist minister and theology professor at The Criswell College in Dallas. "Because I WANT to see Muslims in heaven with me."

But this was not the first time the Caners had been condemned for their religious beliefs. Two decades ago, their devotion to the "Son" cost them their father.
---

When the Caner boys came into the world, their Turkish-born father, Acar, the man who called the faithful to prayer at the mosque, whispered in their ears the words they were to live by: "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah."

But they were living in Columbus, Ohio, far from Acar's Sunni Muslim origins. After their parents separated, others were soon whispering in the Caner boys' ears.

Ergun Caner, the oldest of Acar's three boys, was the first to convert. He was 15 when he accepted a friend's invitation to a weeklong church revival.

To him, his relationship with Allah was impersonal, ritualistic. The message he got at Stelzer Baptist Church was something completely different.

"Christ died for man. That was one thing for me to hear. It was quite another thing for me to hear that Christ died for me. Ha. Then it becomes personal," says Ergun, now 35. "I thought this was good news for all Muslims."

Instead of welcoming the news, Acar Caner told his son he no longer wanted to see him. When younger brothers Emir and Erdem (who now goes by Mark) went for visitation with their father, there was no talk of Ergun; their elder brother's face had been cut from family photographs.

Despite that, the two younger brothers soon followed Ergun's path, with the same results.

While still in their teens, Emir and Ergun said they were called to the ministry.

Both studied at Criswell, where they met Paige Patterson, a driving force in the nation's largest Protestant denomination. When Patterson moved to Wake Forest, N.C., to take over Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Caners followed him.

The two earned master's degrees from Southeastern, then went on to receive doctorates. They had no contact at all with their father until August 1999, when they learned he was dying of cancer.

The three brothers rushed home, not knowing whether their father would let them in. At the urging of his wife, Acar agreed to see his sons.

Ergun, who was pastoring a church in Colorado, laid his 4-month-old son, Braxton, in his father's arms, a tradition from Acar's homeland. He introduced Acar to his wife, a "Southern belle from North Carolina."

As he watched his "earthly hero" waste away, Emir knew Acar would die as he had lived, a devout Muslim. And according to the son's reading of Scripture, Acar would not be waiting for him in heaven.

Acar died four days later, on Emir's 29th birthday.

"That was, for me, a clarion moment," says Ergun, a bear of a man with shaved head and jutting goatee. That is when their mission came into "sharp focus."

He told The Associated Press in 2002 that he was born in Sweden to a Turkish father and Swedish mother, who brought the family to Ohio in 1969, when he was about 3 years old. He said he accepted Christ as a teenager at a Baptist church in Columbus, and then pursued ministry, getting a degree from Criswell College, a Baptist school in Dallas.

The Hadith of Al-Tirmidhi, 242, reads: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibited the observance of prayers in seven places: on a dung hill, in a slaughterhouse, in a graveyard, in the middle of the road, in a bathroom, in the watering place where camels drink and sit, and upon the roof of the House of Allah. Likewise, we read in Fiqh-us-Sunnah 4.53a, "...they cite the Prophet's hadith: "The entire earth is a mosque except for a graveyard and a bathroom."

I need to express that my heart aches over this attack on Dr. Caner. What must the Lord Jesus Christ think when He sees one brother attacking another as you are doing. How Christlike is this? How Loving is this? I was raised in the Reformed faith, but recently left a PCA church over issues similar to this--a total lack of love and caring about a brother. I am convinced that the Lord weeps when he sees this nonsense happening. I am tired of Reformed Theology and it's THINKERS that constantly put down those who have different views. I am tired of Reformed pastors who drink alcohol like fish and claim they can witness to those they drink cocktails with. I am now convinced even more that those of you involved in Reformed Theology need to throw your philosophical ideas about scripture to the wolves and do as the Bible commands. Go into the world, preach the gospel, and love the lost. Have you ever gone to Liberty University and seen over 10,000 students worship the Lord Jesus, who help in the community, and who love the Lord and simply want to live for Him??? I challenge you to do so. Then go to some of your REFORMED colleges and see what is going on. Look at the liberal lifestyles going on, there is nothing out there that can TOUCH what is going on at Liberty. Please, LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"
He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?"
He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
He saith unto him, "Feed my sheep. " He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?"
Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" And he said unto him, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."
Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my sheep."

I am speaking again this morning so I have to be brief. Just wanted to thank all the Lord's people for their prayers for last night's debate with Dr. Robert Price here in Tampa. I could not imagine how the debate could have gone any better than it did. I knew Bob Price would be a personable fellow in conversation, and he was. He was thankful I actually addressed his arguments, not someone else's, and did not use the argument from authority, either. As a result, it was a great exchange. Everyone enjoyed it---except for some of the radical atheists who had more of the "let's go to the colosseum and see someone chopped up" attitude. I will give a full report on Tuesday on the DL, and hopefully a little longer note later today after my speaking responsibilities are fulfilled. But once again, my thanks to all who made this encounter possible. It was of benefit to all who were there.

"First Maccabees is included among other citations from the Old Testament without qualification. Based on 2 Maccabees, St. Thomas responds to difficulties as to whether suffrages can be made for the damned... These are examples taken only from one book of Thomas Aquinas. Suffice it to say, St. Thomas accepted the Dueterocanon as Scripture in its fullest sense" [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) p.215].

The fact is that the Council of Trent did not add to the Bible what Protestants call the apocryphal books. Instead, the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries. The Council of Trent convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books always had belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not. The Council of Trent came on the scene about twelve centuries later and merely restated the ancient position (pp. 46-47).

"It was at the Council of Rome in 382 that St. Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture. Often, it is said that the Council of Trent codified the canon of Scripture after the reformation, but the evidence points to this early council as the when the canon was finalized. The Council of Trent reiterated the canon in a response to the reformer's revision of the historic canon" [source].

"The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century" [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).