Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

St. Hippolytus Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]

Too all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism].

 

[TER]

Types of Mary in the Old Testament

March 30, 2013 by Fr. Evan

Link HERE


From the Orthodox Study Bible (Old Testament): Types of both Christ and Mary, His Mother, fill the Old Testament. Indeed, most of the Old Testament types of Mary – a natural consequence of her essential role in the Incarnation of her Son, Jesus Christ – reveal the awesome marvel of her womb which contained the almighty God. Referring to Genesis 2:9, the hymnography of the Church sees the garden of Eden as a type of Mary: “Rejoice, . . . O living Paradise, having the Lord, the Tree of Life, in your midst” (Akathist Hymn). The burning bush beheld by Moses in the wilderness (Ex 3:1-6) is one of the most often mentioned types of Mary. For example, “She is the Bush springing from barren ground [her mother, St. Anna, had been barren] and burning with the immaterial fire that cleanses and enlightens our souls” (Small Vespers, Nativity of the Theotokos). St John of Damascus observes, “The burning bush is an image of God’s Mother . . . If, therefore, the ground where the image of the Theotokos was seen by Moses is holy ground [Ex 3:5], how much more holy is the image itself?”

The tabernacle in the wilderness, where God dwelt among the wandering Israelites (Ex 25:1-27:19), also prefigures Mary: “The tabernacle that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the holy temple” (Matins, Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple). Another hymn from this service addresses her as “O Holy of Holies,” identifying her with the most holy inner place of the tabernacle and the temple (Ex 26:33; 3Kg 8:6).

Other Old Testament types of Mary relating to the Lord dwelling in her womb include the jar of manna (Ex 16:33, 34); Aaron’s rod that budded (Nm 17:16-23); the tablet of the Law “written with the finger of God” (Ex 31:18); the ladder reaching from earth to heaven (Gn 28:10-17); the fleece that received the dew (Jdg 6:36-38; see Ps 71:1-6); the tongs bearing the live coal (Is 6:6); and the fiery furnace in Babylon (Dan 3:19-50). Concerning this last image, the hymnographer St. Cosmas of Maiuma writes, “The furnace moist with dew was the image and figure of a wonder past nature. For it burned not the Children whom it had received, even as the fire of the Godhead consumed not the Virgin’s womb into which it had descended” (Matins, Nativity of Christ).

The miracle of the Virgin Birth is another prominent theme among the Old Testament types of Mary. One of the most striking of these is found in Ezekiel 43:27 – 44:4, the only Old Testament passage read at all four of the major Feasts of the Theotokos. This reading tells about the east gate of the heavenly temple remaining shut even as the Lord God of Israel, and He alone, goes in and out through it. This is prophetic of the Lord entering Mary’s womb and being born nine months later with her virginity remaining intact. Hence in various hymns the Church proclaims her as “the Gate that looks towards the East,” “the Gate through which none may pass,” and “the East Gate . . . [who] awaits the entrance of the Great Priest.”

Another such image occurs in Daniel 2:45, where the Theotokos is the mountain out of whom a stone (that is, Christ; 1Co 10:4) is cut “without hands.” This refers to Christ’s birth from the Virgin, untouched by a man.

Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham: “God promised to our forefather Abraham that in his seed the Gentiles would be blessed [Gn 22:18], O pure Lady; and through thee today, the promise receives its fulfillment” (Matins, Annunciation).

 

[Kevin007]

There is no reason to believe that God would present further revelation
to add to His Word. The Bible begins with the very beginning of
humanity—Genesis—and ends with the end of humanity as we know
it—Revelation. Everything in between is for our benefit as believers, to
be empowered with God's truth in our daily living. We know this from 2
Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that
the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”<br><br>
If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying
that the Bible we have today is incomplete—that it does not tell us
everything we need to know.

Although it only applies directly to the book of Revelation, Revelation 22:18-20 teaches us an important truth about adding to God's Word: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to
him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away
from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the
tree of life and in the holy city...”


We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible. There is
not a single situation in life that cannot be addressed by Scripture.
What was begun in Genesis finds conclusion in Revelation. The Bible is
absolutely complete and sufficient. Could God add to the Bible? Of
course He could. However, there is no reason, biblically or
theologically, to believe that He is going to do so, or that there is
any need for Him to do so.



http://www.gotquestions.org/books-added-Bible.html

 

[TER]

There is no reason to believe that God would present further revelation
to add to His Word. The Bible begins with the very beginning of
humanity—Genesis—and ends with the end of humanity as we know
it—Revelation. Everything in between is for our benefit as believers, to
be empowered with God's truth in our daily living. We know this from 2
Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that
the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”<br><br>
If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying
that the Bible we have today is incomplete—that it does not tell us
everything we need to know.

Although it only applies directly to the book of Revelation, Revelation 22:18-20 teaches us an important truth about adding to God's Word: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to
him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away
from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the
tree of life and in the holy city...”


We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible. There is
not a single situation in life that cannot be addressed by Scripture.
What was begun in Genesis finds conclusion in Revelation. The Bible is
absolutely complete and sufficient. Could God add to the Bible? Of
course He could. However, there is no reason, biblically or
theologically, to believe that He is going to do so, or that there is
any need for Him to do so.

Do you realize that the bible you are using is not the same as the Scriptures of the earliest Christians? I mean the Apostles themselves used Scriptures significantly different from the one found in most Americans' homes. These bibles are missing some very important books of the Holy Writ, like the Book of Tobit which is a must read.

These bibles are also using a version of the Old Testament which was drafted by Jewish leaders hundreds of years after Christ rose from the dead. The Church has, since the days of Christ's earthly ministry, used the Septuagint, indeed, it is the version referred to by far and the official texts from the beginning.

I found it slightly amusing that the author prefaces with:

We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible.

Yep, because some people 1600 years later were humiliated by a few of them, so they sought to hide them because it revealed certain divine revelations which sinks several of Protestantism's innovative doctrines and theology.

And this assertion that "the Bible is absolutely complete and sufficient" is found nowhere in any writings or councils in the history of the Church until the Reformers. It wasn't even a passing reference let alone a blimp on a radar. It is a doctrine which did not exist until the Reformers made it up. These are the facts Kevin. You will not here Sola Scriptura out of the voices of the Holy Fathers, most of them who were monks living in ascetic obedience or ordained Priests and Bishops.

 

[Kevin007]

http://www.roseavenue.org/Who we are/what we believe/Bible/complete and perfect.htm

 

[lilymc]

TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven." The bible says none of those things.

There are way too many things here to debate right now. Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.

And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all. It truly depresses me.

Even the language used is unnecessary, imo. It's so religious and churchy.

That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.

I'm sorry if that was offensive. I'm just being honest, and I know that there are Catholics here who will probably hate me now.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you realize that the bible you are using is not the same as the Scriptures of the earliest Christians? I mean the Apostles themselves used Scriptures significantly different from the one found in most Americans' homes. These bibles are missing some very important books of the Holy Writ, like the Book of Tobit which is a must read.

These bibles are also using a version of the Old Testament which was drafted by Jewish leaders hundreds of years after Christ rose from the dead. The Church has, since the days of Christ's earthly ministry, used the Septuagint, indeed, it is the version referred to by far and the official texts from the beginning.

I found it slightly amusing that the author prefaces with:

We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible.

Yep, because some people 1600 years later were humiliated by a few of them, so they sought to hide them because it revealed certain divine revelations which sinks several of Protestantism's innovative doctrines and theology.

And this assertion that "the Bible is absolutely complete and sufficient" is found nowhere in any writings or councils in the history of the Church until the Reformers. It wasn't even a passing reference let alone a blimp on a radar. It is a doctrine which did not exist until the Reformers made it up. These are the facts Kevin. You will not here Sola Scriptura out of the voices of the Holy Fathers, most of them who were monks living in ascetic obedience or ordained Priests and Bishops.

+rep If Reformers and Protestants generally really mean what they say when they insist on Sola Scriptura, it would undermine most of their philosophy and theology. :/ It is good that many heterodox people are returning to the ancient Church to get away from "innovative" and false teachings.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven." The bible says none of those things.

There are way too many things here to debate right now. Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.

And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all. It truly depresses me.

Even the language used is unnecessary, imo. It's so religious and churchy.

That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.

I'm sorry if that was offensive. I'm just being honest, and I know that there are Catholics here who will probably hate me now.

Incorrect. Please read the bible in its entirety: not the cherry-picked canon most often read in the US.

 

[lilymc]

Incorrect. Please read the bible in its entirety: not the cherry-picked canon most often read in the US.

I have read it, and studied it. Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin? We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived. But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?

 

[Kevin007]

I have read it, and studied it. Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin? We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived. But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?

It doesn't. They add thousands of untrue things to the Word.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have read it, and studied it. Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin? We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived. But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?

Among others, Ezikiel 44:1-4.

The Eastern outer gate is seen by the Fathers as the womb of the Virgin, which was shut because the Lord God had entered by it. The Church sees this passage as describing the ever-virginity of Mary. Though many modern denominations reject this doctrine, it was held to be true by Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley. St. Jerome writes that the east gate images the Virgin Mary, whose womb is "always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies, and through her 'the Son of Righteousness', our 'high priest after the order of Melchizedek' goes in and out."

Study MOAR, young lady. You know not of what you speak.

It doesn't. They add thousands of untrue things to the Word.

False. We use the ENTIRE Word. Not just what suits us any particular day.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven." The bible says none of those things.

There are way too many things here to debate right now. Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.

And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all. It truly depresses me.

Even the language used is unnecessary, imo. It's so religious and churchy.

That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.

I'm sorry if that was offensive. I'm just being honest, and I know that there are Catholics here who will probably hate me now.

The traditions are not "extra". They are what distinguish a Church from an ecclesiastical community. Nobody hates you. Ignorance is forgivable (even though it's blissful).

 

[lilymc]

Among others, Ezikiel 44:1-4.
Study MOAR, young lady. You know not of what you speak.

Did you mean Ezekiel? I didn't see anything about Mary in that verse.

The traditions are not "extra". They are what distinguish a Church from an ecclesiastical community. Nobody hates you. Ignorance is forgivable (even though it's blissful).

Ha! I'm glad you don't hate me. You are very likeable, I just don't agree with you on the RCC.

But I don't feel like getting into a whole list of things here.... and that would be getting off topic anyway.

Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Did you mean Ezekiel? I didn't see anything about Mary in that verse.



Ha! I'm glad you don't hate me. You are very likeable, I just don't agree with you on the RCC.

But I don't feel like getting into a whole list of things here.... and that would be getting off topic anyway.

Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.

I'm writing from the EO view, not the RC, FYI.

You need an editor for your blog. You don't support your points well. i.e.-You cite 1 Corinthians to support your claim

The bible says that saints are all genuine believers, all who are saved and set apart for God.

, but that passage does not support your claim. The commas in 1:2 distinguish "those who are called to be saints" from "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord".

WRT Ezikiel, I also quoted an explanation from the Orthodox Study Bible. Plz read that.

The Eastern outer gate is seen by the Fathers as the womb of the Virgin, which was shut because the Lord God had entered by it. The Church sees this passage as describing the ever-virginity of Mary. Though many modern denominations reject this doctrine, it was held to be true by Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley. St. Jerome writes that the east gate images the Virgin Mary, whose womb is "always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies, and through her 'the Son of Righteousness', our 'high priest after the order of Melchizedek' goes in and out."

Sweet dreams! ~hugs~

 

[lilymc]

I'm writing from the EO view, not the RC, FYI.

You need an editor for your blog. You don't support your points well. i.e.-You cite 1 Corinthians to support your claim , but that passage does not support your claim. The commas in 1:2 distinguish "those who are called to be saints" from "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord".

We are all called to be saints. It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints. There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.

WRT Ezikiel, I also quoted an explanation from the Orthodox Study Bible. Plz read that.


Sweet dreams! ~hugs~

WRT Ezikiel? I still couldn't find that.

And I did read that commentary. That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine. But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.

good night!

 

[Kevin007]

We are all called to be saints. It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints. There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.



WRT Ezikiel? I still couldn't find that.

And I did read that commentary. That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine. But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.

good night!

exactly.

 

[TER]

Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.

Lilly, if you don't feel comfortable asking for the prayers of the saints to intercede for you, then don't pray to them. However it is biblical, even though it was ignored and some of it censored out of your bible by the Reformers. Every church which has apostolic succession prayed for the intercessions of the saints. How many saints have to be wrong in order for the Reformers to be right? Apparently all of them.

This is a classic example of cafeteria Christianity, picking whatever parts one wants to fit their theology and ignoring the rest.

 

[Terry1]

TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven." The bible says none of those things.

There are way too many things here to debate right now. Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.

And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all. It truly depresses me.

Even the language used is unnecessary, imo. It's so religious and churchy.

That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.

I'm sorry if that was offensive. I'm just being honest, and I know that there are Catholics here who will probably hate me now.

Lily, I don't think anyone will hate you for simply disagreeing on some scriptural context. There are many things that I still question also, but St. Paul did say that we shouldn't debate such things and allow that to come between the brethren. He called them vain disputations.

I came from a protestant background myself and it's taken literally decades for me to come to see some of the greatest errors in what is being taught in some of the churches out there. For me myself, I had to spiritually take a look as those errors and weigh the impact upon the eternal soul as just how detrimental they would be regarding our belief in them.

Take for instance the belief that people are once saved always saved, that is taught in many Baptist and non-denominational protestant churches today. Also the belief that we have no free will and that our choices have no bearing on our eternal destinies, which are not true IMO. These beliefs in these things impact our eternal destinies because these beliefs are the core reason some who think they will inherit the kingdom of heaven may indeed not. These beliefs lead people to believe that they can live anyway they choose and still inherit the kingdom of heaven. Also, weighing the effect of these beliefs on the eternal soul against someone who believes that Mary remained a virgin are far more detrimental to the soul than the belief that Mary is or isn't still a virgin or the Queen of Heaven.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There are some beliefs that are far more dangerous and deadly than others to our eternal soul. When we look at Christian denominations and what they believe as a whole, it's my opinion that we must look at the Gospel of Christ first and make sure that for the most part that teaching spiritually aligns with the word of God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ must include a choice and the ability to choose which master we will follow. It must include faith as an action of repentance towards Godliness and Christ. It must include the fact that we are never once saved always saved, but tested throughout our entire lives to the very end of it and that it's possible to fall from faith and grace. These are things that are absolutely what will determine our eternal destinies.

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin is not a belief that will place our eternal soul in jeopardy. I still have my own personal spiritual convictions about this also, but they are not enough to deter me from understanding who the keepers are and have been of the Gospel of Jesus Christ since the early apostles.

IMO--we can and should never toss the baby out with the bathwater when weighing the impact of certain beliefs that are more dangerous than others. The spirit guides us to understand what to keep and what to toss out. Every single protestant church I have ever attended held beliefs that I thought were very dangerous to the soul. I didn't agree with the Roman Catholics either on the papacy or the worship of Mary and Mariology. This is also where the church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox are split apart, yet they still share their core belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--and this is major to me.

The word of God tells us that Jesus is our one and only mediator and that we are not to give anyone the same level of prayer, faith or worship that we do Him because He is our one and only savior. The angels are our brethren as John was told in Revelation when he attempted to bow down in worship to the angel that rebuked him for it--telling him not to do this because he was simply a messenger and brethren same as John. So it's fairly well understood that it's okay to respect the work in remembrance of the departed saints and our angel brethren in Christ, but our worship is entirely dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I became an Eastern Orthodox Catholic because I weighed the spiritual facts and came to see that no other Christian denomination has come closer to the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ than this church and no other reason. Does believing that Mary is the queen of heaven or whether she remained a virgin impact that at all? No--that doesn't matter to me. Do I believe in using the departed saints as intercessors? No--but I have no problem looking at their spiritual accomplishments and learning from their faithful witnesses and teaching they left for the living. It's my belief that when we pray to the Lord Jesus, the messengers of God make way for those prayers to reach the throne of God and they do the will of God by intervening and watching over us as God wills and do His bidding regarding what we are praying for. The faithful departed saints are just that to me. They have left us with their work and teaching to the benefit of mankind and in that--I believe in respecting and remembering them for their contribution to the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, but it goes no further than that with me.

So you see that not all of us will share the exact same beliefs even though we subscribe to the same church. I believe that traditions are important, because they keep us mindful of what matters spiritually. The traditions that were condemned by Jesus and the apostles were the ones that the Jews practiced in place of faith--not the traditions that the Christian church practices. So Christian traditions are very important and play an important role in our worship to the Lord IMO.

I do not place a church or their traditions above the Lord Jesus Christ and I have my own spiritual convictions that allow me to rightly divide what I should be doing and how I should worship, but this is not to say that what's right for me is the same for another. We all live our own spiritual convictions and we should never condemn another brethren because we disagree with them.

 

[pcosmar]

However it is biblical, even though it was ignored and some of it censored out of your bible by the Reformers.

Censored out by reformers.

There was much censored out long before the reformers. And much lost from the believers that were murdered.

Long before the "reformers".. An though that is a common term used,, for some did attempt to reform,, it is not accurate.

It was a rejection of much,, more that a reformation.

The Counsel of Laodicea censored much from the Book. And many believers to be Heretics. It was highly politically motivated.
It was Error. On a grand scale. And it certainly did not start there,, nor end there.

Error was present in the church before this. But Error gained CONTROL here.

Books Banned By the Counsel of Laodicea.
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin

One of which,, was considered scripture , and quoted in the Book of Jude. I suspect there is much worthwhile in others as well,, though I have yet to study them. The abridged version,, left after the Counsel and the Reformers has enough for salvation.

There were many Christians that did not accept the error. They were hunted and killed.

 

[Terry1]

Censored out by reformers.

There was much censored out long before the reformers. And much lost from the believers that were murdered.

Long before the "reformers".. An though that is a common term used,, for some did attempt to reform,, it is not accurate.

It was a rejection of much,, more that a reformation.

The Counsel of Laodicea censored much from the Book. And many believers to be Heretics. It was highly politically motivated.
It was Error. On a grand scale. And it certainly did not start there,, nor end there.

Error was present in the church before this. But Error gained CONTROL here.

Books Banned By the Counsel of Laodicea.
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin

One of which,, was considered scripture , and quoted in the Book of Jude. I suspect there is much worthwhile in others as well,, though I have yet to study them. The abridged version,, left after the Counsel and the Reformers has enough for salvation.

There were many Christians that did not accept the error. They were hunted and killed.

I believe that the reformers were the wolves that Paul referred to when speaking to the church of Ephesus. The protestant reformers have done far more damage to the body of Christ as a whole than the Catholic Church has ever done. As I said before, you have to do your spiritual homework and find out why the splits happened between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the reformers from the church of Rome.

When it comes to scripture that was tossed out by the churches and councils, there again, let the spirit be your guide, but keep in mind that if it doesn't align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ it needs to be seriously questioned. The key is the Gospel of Jesus and those books--everything must fall in full reconciliation spiritually with those books.