Before I bring his comments in and my response I want to give the background of what he is talking about in the book of Tobit. He asserts the book has an angel both lying and committing sorcery, and that is one of the reasons why the book of Tobit should be denied canonical status. In the book of Tobit, there is an angel of the Lord, Raphael, who meets Tobias, the son of Tobit, who is to go on a journey, Tobit 5. Raphael says that he is a kinsman with the name of Azaraias. In Tobit 6 they catch a large fish. They eat the fish and the angel tells them to cut out and take the heart , liver and gall from the fish (Tob. 6:3-5). He instructs Tobias to take for his wife Sarah, the daughter of Raguel. There has been a demon who had killed seven men seven different times in the bridal chamber when they were about to be in Sarah's embrace. When Tobias tells Raphael about all the men who died in their bridal chamber, Raphael tells Tobias to not worry but to take live ashes of incense and put on the incense the heart and liver of the fish they had just eaten. Then Tobias is told the demon will flee and never return, and God will save him. Raphael tells Tobias that no harm shall come to him, Tob. 6:15-18. Raguel is the father of Sarah, knows Tobit and tells Tobias about the 7 men who had been killed in the bridal chamber. Tobias, because of Raphael's encouragement, agrees to marry Sarah. Raguel then introduces Tobias to Sarah, Tob. 7:1. Tobias takes the heart and the liver of the fish and puts it on live ashes of incense and made smoke just as Raphael instructed, Tob. 8:2-5. Raphael binds the demon and the demon flees and Tobias is safe. Both Raguel and Tobias give praise to God for his mercy and greatness (Tob. 8:5-6, 14-17). Tobit had gone blind in the meantime. Next Raphael instructs Tobias when he greets his father Tobit, to take the gall that he had gotten from the fish, and anoints him with the gall on his eyes Tob. 11:7. This then cures Tobit's blindness, Tob. 11:11-13. Tobit praises God for all that happened, Tob. 11:17-18. Raphael then reveals to Tobit and Tobias that he is an angel, and gives praise to God. Then he reveals that he is Raphael one of the seven holy angels, Tob. 12:6-15. Then in Tobit 13 Tobit writes a prayer of praise and thanksgiving to God. This needs to be said as background to the following comments by the emailer.

God bless,
I come to you as a servant in Christ. I read your refutal of the refutal of the apocrypha books that Roman Catholicism has included into the accepted canon of scriptural books. I don't want to make this essay too long, but I wanted to address a couple of points, mainly with the book of Tobit.

1)Rafael lies from the outset to Tobias about who he is and encourages Tobias to use magic or sorcery to ward off a demon.

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

11: "I will not conceal anything from you. I have said, `It is good to guard the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God." 12: And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you. 13: When you did not hesitate to rise and leave your dinner in order to go and lay out the dead, your good deed was not hidden from me, but I was with you. 14: So now God sent me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah. 15: I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One."

2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

What about your charge that Raphael's initial proclamation of who he is was 'lying'? Yes, he conceals in the very beginning who he was, in line with Hebrews 13. Most angels do not just start off by saying, 'hey, I am an angel.' Now in Tobit 5, the angel does say that he is a kinsman. He also says his name is Azarias, the son of Ananias. But what do those names mean, and is that lying?

A commentary sheds some light on this:

Some have wondered that the Angel should apparently tell a lie. In reality there is no question of a lie. The heavenly messenger had every right to conceal the truth of his identity, which he does by playing on the Hebrew names 'Azaarius' (Heb. 'The Lord has given aid.') and 'Ananias' (Heb. 'The Lord is clement.') which truthfully describe his particular mission. Admittedly, there is always something mysterious from our viewpoint about the appearances in human form of the Angels as they are described in Sacred Scripture. Such phenomena have no analogy in the natural order, and so, human terminology is usually inadequate to describe them. In this case it could well be that the Angel is expressing, by approximation, a twofold reality: his angelic nature and his appearance in human form. Thus when he says that he is 'of the children of Israel' (5:7), and that he is a 'kinsman' of Tobias senior (5:14) he means: 'I though an angel of God, have taken, at God's command, the human form of the individual Israelite Azarias.' The language is vague and involved, but it is not false. The book of Tobias by D. F. Devine, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons, page 399, New York, 1953.

In the Old Testament we had a pagan show a response similar to your outrage about this supposed 'magic' in reference to not using fish matter, but water.

2 Kings 5:9-14:

9: So Na'aman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the door of Eli'sha's house. 10: And Eli'sha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean." 11: But Na'aman was angry, and went away, saying, "Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper. 12: Are not Aba'na and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13: But his servants came near and said to him, "My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?" 14: So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

We see this in the New Testament as well. Jesus in John 9:6-7 does the following:

6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, 7 saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

In the gospel of Mark, we find a parallel to Tobit's use of matter in a healing. Mark 6:7, 13 says.

7 And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

Now, in the book of 1 Kings, chapter 22 and verses 18-22, Ahab king of Israel contacts favorable prophets to proclaim victory for him in his upcoming war against Ramoth-Gilead. Only the true prophet of God, Micaiah, predicted the real outcome, the fall of the king. Yahweh allowed lying spirits to entice the false prophets so that Micaiah would prophecy for the Lord. The lying spirits resulted in disaster and destruction for Ahab. QUITE the contrary to the story of Tobit in which a lying spirit promised prosperity and gave it. Lying spirits in real scripture only do wicked things.

2)In Genesis chapter 18, Abraham had always KNOWN the three men were angels, and they weren't just angels, one of them was the Lord HIMSELF manifested in flesh for Abraham to see. There never was any deception on the part of the Lord and His angels. They had always intended for Abraham to know they were who they were. It's very clear in Scripture: Genesis 18:1-5

"Yahweh appeared to him at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. He looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and bowed to the ground. "My Lord," he said. "I beg you, if I find favor with you, kindly do not pass your servant by. A little water shall be brought; you shall wash your feet and lie down under the tree. Let me fetch a little bread and you shall refresh yourselves before going further. That is why you have come in your servant's direction." They replied "Do as you say."

It is clear as day Abraham knew God before him and was never deceived, nor did God intend to deceive him.

Next when he says 'My lord', that does not indicate that Abraham thought either the men were angels or believes he thought that they were an incarnation of Jesus. That was just a respectful greeting. Sarah herself called Abraham my lord, Gen. 18:12. She didn't think that Abraham was God or an angelic being. Ephron called Abraham my lord twice in Genesis 23 (vv. 11, 15), without Abraham even being thought of anything more than a human being. Rebekah calls Abraham's servant 'my lord', Genesis 24:18. Thus, Abraham's greeting of 'my lord' gives us no idea that he thought these 3 angels were anything more than men.

In Genesis 19, Lot also knew the angels before him. Again, no clear intent by the angels to decieve him was ever established. Verses 2-3 reads just like chapter 18 with Abraham, as Lot did as Abraham did and served his angelic hosts. No deception, nothing remotely like Rafael in TOBIT.

Also, I think you completely misread all of Chapter 19 because the men Lot offered his daughter to were the citizens of Sodom who were hunting down the angels that came before Lot! It's clear in scripture:

Gen. 19:4-8

"They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the men of the town, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception. Calling to Lot they said, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we may abuse them." "Lot came out to them, at the door, and having closed the door behind him said 'I beg you, my brothers, do no such wicked thing. Listen, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, to treat as it pleases you. But as for the men, do nothing to them, for they have come under the shadow of my roof."

In the next few verses, the angels blinded the men who were forcing themselves into Lot's home. This was all a test by God to judge Lot's righteousness, to test that Lot was worthy of salvation from the destruction of Sodom. This is all in accordance to what Jesus said hundreds of years later when He said you must love God more then you do your mother, your wife, even your children (Luke 14:26) Lot knew the angels were God's servant and his love for God made him protect the angels more then he did his own daughters.

3) This is what you said regarding sorcery: "The quotation of Deuteronomy says that one is not supposed to use a charmer, practice divination, or encourage sorcery (Dt. 18:10-12). That is absolutely irrelevant to Tobit, as the angel does no such conjuring up of Spirits."

No, the angel in TOBIT DOES use sorcery, and his brand of sorcery is similar to the brand used in modern day SANTERIA. And the quote in Deuteronomy states not one who encourages sorcery but one who IS a sorcerer (yes, encouraging it is bad, too, but notice how being one is considered an abomination.) NOWHERE ELSE in Scripture do we read of any angel of God who uses such tactics to ward off evil spirits.

God commanded incense to be offered throughout the Old Testament. In Genesis 8 the sweet smell of Noah's burnt offering was pleasing to God after God destroyed the evil in the flood. In Numbers 16 we see the following:

44: and the LORD said to Moses, 45: "Get away from the midst of this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment." And they fell on their faces. 46: And Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make atonement for them; for wrath has gone forth from the LORD, the plague has begun." 47: So Aaron took it as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and behold, the plague had already begun among the people; and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people. 48: And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped.

So my question to you is, since God has not encouraged any angel in Scripture to use the practices the lying spirit Rafael uses, what then do you call the act performed by Tobias under Rafael if it isn't sorcery?

It is clear here that the chief efficacy of the burning heart and liver of the fish, is due to the power of God and his Angel over the demon. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 400.

4) This is what you said: "What does Romans 3:1-2 actually say? Does it say that the Jews will actually be the ones who canonize the Old Testament? Does it say that they have the authority to determine the canon over the canon that the Church that Jesus himself established? Jesus says to his New Covenant apostles "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 18:18). Well, here is the actual text of Romans 3:"

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

And what were the Apostles? What was Jesus? They were- JEWS. Jesus MANY times cites already canonized scripture in the Gospels, and refers to them as so, so there already was an established canon of Old Testament scripture before Roman Catholicism came into the picture and took credit for herself.

Now back to Romans 3 you must look at the context. The specific point that Paul speaks of here is the advantage of circumcision. Circumcision was necessary to enter the old covenant family of God. At the same time, the Jews were entrusted in the old covenant with the oracles of God as well. However, Paul goes on to write that circumcision is no longer necessary to enter the covenant with God (Rom. 3&4, cf., Gal. 3, 4, 5). The basis on which he makes his statement on the oracles is in reference to circumcision. As Paul makes the tie-in with the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God with circumcision, which is done away with as a necessity for entrance into God's family, it is a tremendous stretch to say that this gives the Jews the Ok to determine the extent of the canon, while ignoring the Church that Jesus established. Just as circumcision is done away with as a necessity, so the Jews no longer had the authority to determine the extent of the canon. The Church that accepted Jesus and who Jesus gave authority to bind and loose on earth that which is in heaven (Mt. 16:18, 18:18) certainly had more authority to determine the extent of the canon.

And what were the oracles that Paul cited? What was the message he said God entrusted to the jews? That message was the Law and the Prophets, the Scriptures from the Old Testament.

God gave the Jews the Ten Commandments as well as the Pentateuch. That is not even up for debate. And the prophetic books were all cited by Jesus and Paul as scripture. Peter in the book of Acts refers to the Psalms as scripture. All but 4 books in the true canon of Old Testament Scripture are referenced as such in the New testament

Paul says in Romans Chapter 11 that the Jews are still the chosen people of God.

You said:

" This just says that the Jews were committed, or given the oracles of God, or Scripture. It does not say that they determine what the content of the Scriptures are, of either the New or Old Testament. In fact at the time of Jesus there was no determined Jewish canon."

What you said makes absolutely no sense. If there was no defined canon, how can God give them to the Jews? And moreso, how can God give his message to the Jews if they were only going to alter it? And again, your claim of no defined canon at the time of Jesus is inaccurate as Christ Himself refers to the Scriptures clearly in many instances in the Gospel (as do the Apostles in their letters.)

Yes, Paul wrote that the Jews were the chosen people of God. However, in the New Covenant, Gal. 6:14-16 says:

14 But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.

Josephus is a well respected Jewish historian from the 1st century AD. He has often stated in his life that divine inspiration from God ended at the time of Malachi, that it was only from the time of Moses to Artaxerxes, a period BEFORE any of the apocryphal books were written. Josephus was also quoted as saying:

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

When you find Josephus' quotations you'll see that he mentions 22 books as accepted. That sounds contradictory to the 39 accepted books in the true Christian canon of Old Testament Scripture. However, many of the Old Testament Scritpures were at the time joined as single books. Here is the breakdown as revealed in this website, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

Genesis - 1
Exodus - 1
Leviticus - 1
Numbers - 1
Deuteronomy - 1 (the 5 books of Moses)
Joshua - 1
Judges and Ruth, folded together on one scroll as they were in Josephus' time - 1
1 and 2 Samuel - also considered one book in Josephus' time - 1
1 and 2 Kings - Ditto. - 1
1 and 2 Chronicles - Ditto again. - 1
Jeremiah and Lamentations - also considered as one book at the time - 1
Isaiah - 1
Amos, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, Jonah, Haggai, Habakkuk, Nahum, Micah, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah - all folded together, as noted above - 1
Daniel - 1
Ezekiel - 1
Ezra and Nehemiah, folded together - 1
Esther - 1
Job - 1 (the 13 prophetic books)
Proverbs - 1
Psalms - 1
Song of Songs - 1
Ecclesiastes - 1. (the 4 instructional books)

You also refer to Josephus' argument that prophets ceased at the time of Artexerxes. Therefore not only prophets but even inspired writings ceased at the time of Malachi. Well, we will see when I address your argument in the last section, there was not full agreement among Jews, even at the time of Josephus, that inspiration had ceased at the time of Malachi. The Deuterocanonicals clearly do point to Christ, as we will see later, and is thus prophetic. Besides that, when you use that argument, then you are seizing upon an argument that invalidates all of the New Testament. John the Baptist will not then have been a prophet, and certainly Jesus was not a prophet. You have thus invalidated not only the Deuterocanonicals, but all of the New Testament. If his argument is valid then we have no inspired New Testament as well as no inspired Deuterocanonical books. If his argument is not valid, then neither the New Testament or the Deuterocanonicals' canonicity, are invalidated. The Catholic Church rightly says his argument is not valid.

5) Lastly, I want to end on this one. You say this: "Now we do not have any record of any of the debates in Jamnia. However, it is well-known that Christianity was attacked in the Council of Jamnia. Those who were Christian were termed in a very derogatory manner and there are prayers in the Council that called for curses upon Christians. In fact, they may have looked at Wisdom 2:12-20, especially vv. 18-20 and undoubtedly saw this passage pointing to Jesus:"

If there is no record of the debates at jamnia, then how do you know what was even said there? How do you know Christianity was attacked there? How do you know there were derogatory prayers aimed at Christians at the time in Jamnia IF NO RECORD OF THE DEBATES EXISTED? You have to offer proof of this, otherwise it would seem you are repeating oft heard Roman Catholic propoganda to dispell the Jews' authority of Old Testament Scripture.

Several concerns of the remaining Jewish communities in Israel would have been the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was two fold:

A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use among the Hellenized diaspora along with its additional books not part of the Hebrew language Masoretic Text.

The inclusion of a curse on the Minim which probably included Jewish Christians (Birkat ha-Minim). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: "In passages referring to the Christian period, "minim" usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b). In some passages, indeed, it is used even for "Christian"; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word "Noeri," which was the usual term for 'Christian'. .. On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha;an composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions"; it is called "Birkat ha-Minim" and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original "Noẓerim" ... the present text has "wela-malshinim" (="and to the informers"). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes."

Dr. Albert Sundberg, a Lutheran historian, acknowledges that even Jamnia did not settle the issue for all Jews. Even after Jamnia we see the following:

There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira."35 Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch as written. . . , repeated in the Prophets, as written. . . , mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah, . . . ."36

There is no idea of a set canon up to that point. Also, noticed a bit above in reference to Jamnia, there is a growing problem of Jews converting to Christianity. They included a curse of those Jewish Christians. Thus, there are curses of Christians at Jamnia.

Here is some more information that John Hellman documents in his reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia (Jabneh is another term used for Jamnia): http://members.aol.com/johnprh/curse.html This site is no longer active but I still got more documentation that matches below:

The curse can be documented by referring to the following quotes taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica under the subject headings listed below. The page references are found at the end of this article. The Encyclopaedia Judaica is advertised as "The Most Comprehensive Authoritative Source on the Jewish World.":

"AMIDAH

. . . (12) Asks God to destroy the malshinim ("slanderers" or "informers"), all His enemies, and to shatter the "kingdom of arrogance" (see below).

. . . Birkat ha Minim (benediction 12), introduced in Jabneh by Samuel ha Katan, at the request of Rabban Gamaliel II, . . . enlarged on the meaning of a previously known benediction, as Shel Paroshin ("concerning the dissidents") or Shel Resha'im ("concerning the wicked"). He did this by applying it specifically to Jewish heretics. It is generally assumed that this new formulation was meant to force the Judeo-Christians out of the Jewish community; in the Genizah version, the word Nozerim ("Christians") actually occurs." 4. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Published in 1971 by The Macmillan Company, New York. Volume 2, pages 841 - 842, Article: AMIDAH. "SAMUEL HA-KATAN

. . . Samuel is best known for Birkat ha-Minim, which expressed anathema against Judeo-Christians, sectarians, and informers. It was composed at the request of Gamaliel II, and incorporated into the daily *Amidah (Ber. 28b)." 5. Ibid. Volume 14, pages 815 - 816, Article: SAMUEL HA-KATAN

Hopefully the Jewish Encyclopedia should allay your concerns that I am just 'repeating oft heard Roman Catholic propaganda.' You are basing your rejection of these books on Protestant propaganda that is relying on a Council 60 years after Christ. They come up with a canon that Protestants accept, while at the same time this Council that you rely as a witness to the Pharisaic Scriptures that you have, curses Christians. That does not make sense to me.

You mention the verse in the book of Wisdom as having Messianic tones and go on to say:

"Wisdom 2 does not say, "this is a prophecy about the Messiah," but gives a powerful forecast of, and can only be explained by what happened to Jesus the Messiah who indeed was God's Son who was condemned to death, and mocked. It is obvious that those Jews in Jamnia who rejected Christianity saw that this passage pointed to Jesus and they could not have that."

If that was the case, then the Jews would have had to remove Isaiah, Psalms, many of the other prophetic books, even Genesis and Exodus since there are heavy Messianic prophecies in those books. Really, the argument that the Jews removed the apocrypha because of their heavy messianic prophecies does not hold water due to the LACK of true messianic prophecies in the books as well as the fact that true Jewish Scripture still contains messianic prophecies that Christ fulfilled.

I hope I've shed some light on this subject, and I implore you to please read the Scriptures with true discernment. It's obvious you haven't done so.

Why do you say that there is a lack of true messianic prophecies? Well, let us look at Wisdom 2:12-20 and see if that lacks a true prophecy of Christ:

12: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. (Mt. 23:23, 27-28, Jn 7:19, Mt. 26:3-4) 13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. (Jn 8:55, Jn 3:18, 5:25) 14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; (Jn 9:4, Lk 6:7-11) 15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. (Mt. 15:1-6, Mk 3:1-6, Lk 5:21-26) 16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. (Lk 11:39-41, Mt. 5:10, Lk 10:22, 17: Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; (Mt. 27:42) 18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. (Mt. 27:43) 19: Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance . 20: Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.(Mt. 27:43, Lk 23:35-37)"

The author to the Hebrews in Heb 11:35 points to 2 Macc 7 in the same way that he points to other passages in the Old Testament that you recognize as well. Paul in Romans 1 clearly draws from Wisdom 13 as well.

It is clear that the grounds that you have used to dismiss the Deuterocanonicals do not hold water. Latching on to Protestant arguments attacking the Deuterocanonicals that would likewise do away with books that you accept, means you are taking away from God's Holy Word, Rev. 22:19. I don't recommend that at all.

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt matt16182@yahoo.com

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page