PDA

View Full Version : Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?


Pages : [1] 2

xdisciplex
09-14-2006, 04:35 PM
I heard that the early christians all accepted the Septuagint which also contained all those books which are not accepted today anymore and which can only be found in the catholic bible. Is this true?
If they accepted them back then why are they not accepted anymore today? If God controlled this whole canonization then why did he first of all allow mistakes which were later on corrected? Somehow it's really not easy to simply have this blind faith and to think that the bible as we have it today is 100% correct when the first christians were using a different bible. :confused:

El_Guero
09-14-2006, 05:09 PM
A good local pastor would answer this for you reallllllllll quick.

What city?

Taufgesinnter
09-15-2006, 03:13 AM
I heard that the early christians all accepted the Septuagint which also contained all those books which are not accepted today anymore and which can only be found in the catholic bible. Is this true?
If they accepted them back then why are they not accepted anymore today? If God controlled this whole canonization then why did he first of all allow mistakes which were later on corrected? Somehow it's really not easy to simply have this blind faith and to think that the bible as we have it today is 100% correct when the first christians were using a different bible. :confused:Until the 1500s, all Christians accepted the OT of the apostles and early church, the Greek translation called the Septuagint (LXX). If you'd like to read the books that Protestants eventually cut out of the Bible, just pick up a copy of the 1611 King James Version--they're in there. There are a couple of publishers that have the 1611 KJV in print--one that's inexpensive is printed by Thomas Nelson. There's a wonderful prophecy of Jesus' atoning death in one of the books.

Regards,
Tauf (not Catholic)

Joseph M. Smith
09-15-2006, 07:08 AM
Protestant churches generally (the Episcopal Church is an exception) use only the Old Testament books as listed by the rabbis gathered at Jamnia ca. 90 AD. This council was called by Jewish leaders to clarify a list of canonical writings in order to defend Judaism against the claims of Christianity.

One can certainly affirm divine leadership for the decision to limit the Old Testament to those books, as the extracanonical books add nothing doctrinally to them, and in some cases are a bit on the fanciful side.

Darron Steele
09-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Yes, the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint did indeed include books that are not Scripture, but no the earliest leaders of the church did not accept them as Scripture.

When in discussions involving Catholics or that could involve Catholics, I sometimes use the old Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for Scripture. It includes some of those non-Scripture books, but my use of it does not mean that I consider those additional books to be Scripture.

First century historian Josephus was a Palestinian Jew just like Jesus and the apostles. In Against Apion 1:8 Josephus reported that no books had been adopted as divine by Palestinian Jews since Persian rule; he describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority.”

I believe that neither Jesus nor the apostles who ran the New Testament church accepted these other pre-New Testament books. Some later Christians did.

nate
09-15-2006, 04:35 PM
Yes the Christians of the first Century accepted the Apocryphal books. Remember the Jews hated Christians in the first couple of century's because we teach that Jesus was the Messiah-that means they killed the Christ. Much tension there so they hacked off books the Church used mostly the books the Septuagint contain that isn't found in most modern Protestant Bibles.

Gold Dragon
09-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Many protestants claim that the NT does not quote the Deuterocanon (or apocrypha).

However the following page is a list of quotes of the Deuterocanon in the NT.
Like most OT references in the NT, the quotes are not exact and the person hosting this page admits many may or may not be references depending on your interpretation.

Deuterocanonical references in the NT (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm)

Here is another list and also quotations from the early church fathers from the Deuterocanon.

Scripture Catholic - Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html)

I think it is easy to say that the early church definitely used the deuterocanon. It is more difficult to say whether it was considered inspired scripture.
(http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml)

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 06:21 PM
Until the 1500s, all Christians accepted the OT of the apostles and early church, the Greek translation called the Septuagint (LXX). If you'd like to read the books that Protestants eventually cut out of the Bible, just pick up a copy of the 1611 King James Version--they're in there. There are a couple of publishers that have the 1611 KJV in print--one that's inexpensive is printed by Thomas Nelson. There's a wonderful prophecy of Jesus' atoning death in one of the books.Regards,
Tauf (not Catholic)Every King James Version bible up to 1827 had the missing books.

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 06:26 PM
Yes, the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint did indeed include books that are not Scripture, but no the earliest leaders of the church did not accept them as Scripture.

Really?

You should really go visit Scripture Catholic:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

DHK
09-15-2006, 07:07 PM
I heard that the early christians all accepted the Septuagint which also contained all those books which are not accepted today anymore and which can only be found in the catholic bible. Is this true?

Your premise is completely wrong.
The Septuagint was written about 250 B.C. It is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Why should we not accept it, just as any other translation of the Bible? It is the oldest translation of the Bible. I have a copy of it myself.
What is wrong with another translation of the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha was written between 130 B.C. and 50 A.D. How could books written between 130 and 50 A.D. be contained in a book written in 250 B.C. That is ludicrous! The apocrypha are spurious books that were never accepted by early Christians, never accepted by the Jews, never accepted by the Protestants, and only officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1532. They do not belong in the Bible at all, and in fact, teach doctrine contrary to actual Biblical doctrine. Some of them are written as fanciful fairy tales, and do not even read as Scripture. The "13th and 14th" chapters of Daniel are two such stories that are mythical stories that read like fairy-tales, hard to believe even for a child. You might as well believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Clause then to believe in the contents of those books.
DHK

Gold Dragon
09-15-2006, 07:20 PM
The Apocrypha was written between 130 B.C. and 50 A.D. How could books written between 130 and 50 A.D. be contained in a book written in 250 B.C.
The earliest dates noted for the Septuagint like your 250 BC date are for the initial translation which was just of the Torah. As time went by, the rest of the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek. Whether this included or didn't include the deuterocanonicals before the influence of the Christian (Catholic) church, we will not know since our oldest relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint are 4th century manuscripts preserved by the Christian church which do include the deuterocanonicals.

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 07:40 PM
The Apocrypha...

This is what the fundamentalists call the 7 books in Catholic Bibles that protestant Bibles do not have. Catholics call them 'Deuterocanonicals'. They are, Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also include parts of Daniel and Esther. There are many other books, called Apocrypha, by Catholics that are not considered inspired. I believe Protestants merely put those 7 books in the same pot and called them all Apocrypha.

The Problem...

Non Catholics insist that the 'Council of Trent' added those seven books to bring the total number of books to 73. They point to the fact that the 'Council of Jamnia' removed those books from the Bible in 90-95 A.D., so they were never in the 'Bible' from that date on.

The Solution...

Absolutely right, for the second part of the problem. The 'Council of Jamnia' did indeed remove those 7 books. The fact of the matter is that Jamnia was not a Christian council, but a Jewish one, called specifically to counter Christianity. In keeping with their practice of presenting only half truths, the non-Catholic detractors fail to mention that fact. The Apostles and Christians in general, used the Greek'Septuagint', also called LXX, as their Bible in the first century. This upset the Jews, so they decided to call a council to deal with the matter. Keep in mind that the Jewish temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and all of the Jewish priests were killed. Now they were fearful that Christianity would overtake them. The Septuagint is the Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew, which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century B.C., and it had all 46 books including the Deuterocanonicals. The Jews decided to revise the canon of the Old Testament and they wanted to remove references that would be useful to Christians.

They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included.

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 07:43 PM
The seven books did not meet all 4 criteria set up by the Jews...

Baruch was not written in Palestine. Disqualified by reason 3.

Sirach and 1Maccabees were written after 400 B.C.. Disqualified by reason 4.

Tobit and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and outside of Palestine.

Disqualified by reasons 2 and 3.

Judith was written in Aramaic. Disqualified by reason 2.

Wisdom was written in Greek. Disqualified by reason 2.

2Maccabees was written after 400 B.C. and in Greek. Disqualified by reasons 2 and 4.

Christians continued to use the Septuagint. In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the 'Vulgate' which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don't forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther's own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were "added" at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren't there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a "reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament". They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it. Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council?

Protestants have repeatedly said there is no evidence that Deuterocanonical books are inspired as none of them are referenced in the New Testament. This is absolutely not true as there are several references to the "Deuters", and at least two from apocrypha which I have found...

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 07:46 PM
Protestants have repeatedly said there is no evidence that Deuterocanonical books are inspired as none of them are referenced in the New Testament. This is absolutely not true as there are several references to the "Deuters", and at least two from apocrypha which I have found...

1. Jude 1:9, Yet when Michael the archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he did not venture to bring against him an accusation of blasphemy, but said, "May the Lord rebuke thee."
This is only in the Apocryphal book, 'The Assumption of Moses'.

2. Jude 1:14, Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones..." This prophecy is from the Apocryphal Book of 'Enoch', 1:9.

3. 2Tim 3:8, "Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth, for they are corrupt in mind, reprobate as regards the faith." Although this is a reference to Ex 7:11, the 'magicians' of Pharaoh, they are not named in Exodus. They are found in the Apocryphal book 'Gospel of Nicodemus' 5:1. They are also found in the 'Narrative of Aeneas' Account of the Suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ', 5:4.

Bible references (NT) to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.: These references show legitimacy to these books that Protestants rejected.

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2Macc 7:1-29. How do you, who do not have 2Maccabees, explain that? Note! The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1King 17:23 and 2King 4:36.

2. Heb 11:38, "...wandering in the deserts, mountains..." This is found in 1Macc 2:28-30 and 2Macc 5:27.

3. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.

4. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.

5. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7

6. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

7. Heb 1:3, "...brightness of His glory..." Similar to Wis 7:26-27

8. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.

9. 1Cor 6:13, "...food for the belly and belly for food..." Similar to Sir 36:20

10. Rom 1:18-32, GOD is known by the things He has created...Similar to Wis 13:1-9

11. Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Similar to Tob 4:16

12. Lk 14:13, "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.

13. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." Similar to Tob 13:21.

14. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.

15. Mt 18:15, "But if thy brother sin against thee..." Similar to Sir 19:13

16. Mt 25:36, "...sick and you visited me..." Similar to Sir 7:39.

17. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.

18. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." Found in Wis 2:13.

19. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.

20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.

21. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.

22. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.

23. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.

24. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.

25. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

Coincidence?

BrianT
09-15-2006, 08:05 PM
Protestant churches generally (the Episcopal Church is an exception) use only the Old Testament books as listed by the rabbis gathered at Jamnia ca. 90 AD. This council was called by Jewish leaders to clarify a list of canonical writings in order to defend Judaism against the claims of Christianity.


So why should we accept the OT canon as defined by a group fighting against Christianity, and not the OT canon as used by the early church?

orthodox
09-15-2006, 08:30 PM
I heard that the early christians all accepted the Septuagint which also contained all those books which are not accepted today anymore and which can only be found in the catholic bible. Is this true?
If they accepted them back then why are they not accepted anymore today? If God controlled this whole canonization then why did he first of all allow mistakes which were later on corrected? Somehow it's really not easy to simply have this blind faith and to think that the bible as we have it today is 100% correct when the first christians were using a different bible. :confused:

Most of the early church accepted all the books as contained in the LXX, because almost all the church spoke Greek and this was their bible. There were a few of the church fathers who seemed to put SOME of the so-called apocryphal books on a lower level. For example, Athanasius seems to put Wisdom of Solomon at a lower level, but he lists Baruch as sacred scripture. We shouldn't forget also that some early sources reject Esther, even though it is in the protestant canon. (e.g. the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae, 350-360AD, and Gregory of Nazianzus 370AD, Jerome).

It also should be remembered that those early church fathers who seemed to be influenced by the later Jewish canon did not follow it exactly either. The Jews had a habit of referring to their canon as 22 books because they combined various books together as one. So it's not always easy to say that a father who says there are 22 books agrees with the Jews. For example, Cyril of Alexandria says there are 22 books like the Jews do, but he combines Baruch with Jeremiah and the Epistle of Jeremiah in doing that calculation.

Origen, who was the bishop of Alexandria in the 2nd century actually said that Christians should start with the apocrypha and then move onto the Psalms and then the gospels.

Essentially, you will not find clear cut answers by reading the church fathers. You could reject more books than the protestant canon, you could accept a few more or a lot more. It's no different than the NT canon really, because a few books in the NT on the periphery took a lot longer to become fully accepted (eg Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude).

The question is, do you believe, as the Orthodox Church does, that the Church is led into all truth? At times in history things havn't been 100% clear to everyone, but is the Church as a whole in time led into all truth? (Jn 16:13).

If not, you have no certain canon, you only have whatever canon you personally want to follow.

orthodox
09-15-2006, 08:52 PM
Your premise is completely wrong.
The Septuagint was written about 250 B.C. It is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Why should we not accept it, just as any other translation of the Bible? It is the oldest translation of the Bible. I have a copy of it myself.
What is wrong with another translation of the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha was written between 130 B.C. and 50 A.D. How could books written between 130 and 50 A.D. be contained in a book written in 250 B.C. That is ludicrous!


The LXX was translated ad-hoc over time. Initially only the 1st five books. The other books were translated at various times by various people.


The apocrypha are spurious books that were never accepted by early Christians, never accepted by the Jews, never accepted by the Protestants, and only officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1532.


It would be ludicrous to claim that the apocrypha was only sanctioned by Trent seeing as they were contained in ALL manuscripts of the church whether the Latin west or the Greek east right from the beginning to the present time.


They do not belong in the Bible at all, and in fact, teach doctrine contrary to actual Biblical doctrine.


Nonsense.


Some of them are written as fanciful fairy tales, and do not even read as Scripture. The "13th and 14th" chapters of Daniel are two such stories that are mythical stories that read like fairy-tales, hard to believe even for a child. You might as well believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Clause then to believe in the contents of those books.

A lot of people think that Job reads as a fairy tale too. Whether you think it is literal event, or a parable doesn't stop it being sacred scripture.

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:02 PM
So why should we accept the OT canon as defined by a group fighting against Christianity, and not the OT canon as used by the early church?Exactly! Understand now! The only reason protestants reject the missing books is because the RCC and the EOC accept them. If it is RCC or EOC, it must be rejected! That is the mentality.

Protestants always use this excuse: "The Jews don't recgonized them as Inspired" That is the one truth Satan wants you to know concerning the council of Jamnia.

What are the other truths?

Truth #2 They officially kicked all Christians out of the synagogues.

Truth #3 They declared a distinction between Jews and Christians.

Truth #4 This is by far the worst as described below:

Also at the same council they modified or added to their daily prayers which are required for all Jews to say everyday:

Officially called the "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:05 PM
Let me reiterate the 4 rules they established.

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

New Testament Books: disqualified by at least rules 2, 3, and 4.

DHK
09-15-2006, 10:08 PM
The earliest dates noted for the Septuagint like your 250 BC date are for the initial translation which was just of the Torah. As time went by, the rest of the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek. Whether this included or didn't include the deuterocanonicals before the influence of the Christian (Catholic) church, we will not know since our oldest relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint are 4th century manuscripts preserved by the Christian church which do include the deuterocanonicals.
The fact is that the original translation did not contain the Apocrypha, and indeed could not contain the Apocrypha. They were never accepted by the Jews, and thus were never included in the Jewish canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, that very canon which we use today. We do not use a canon or body of Scripture that has been corrupted by others.
DHK

DHK
09-15-2006, 10:20 PM
Protestants have repeatedly said there is no evidence that Deuterocanonical books are inspired as none of them are referenced in the New Testament. This is absolutely not true as there are several references to the "Deuters", and at least two from apocrypha which I have found...
First, give your evidence of the Apocryphal books that are quoted in the New Testament before stating that they are.

BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
Inasmuch as the fourteen apocryphal have been placed in the Canon of the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been rejected by Protestants, it is necessary that the canonicity of these books be considered. If these books are a part of the Scriptures, are canonical, we have no right to exclude them, and if the claims made for their canonicity are erroneous they should be rejected. It is at this point the question can be most appropriately considered.

The Fourteen Books
The word “Apocrypha” signifies "secret" or “hidden” and is applied to a class of writings relative to portions of the Old Testament, and to similar writings in connection with the New Testament. The following are the Old Testament books of The Apocrypha.
1. I Esdras. 2. II Esdras. 3. Tobit. 4. Judith. 5. Additions to the book of Esther. 6. In the Wisdom of Solomon. 7. Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach). 8. Baruch (Ch. VI—the Epistle of Jeremy). 9. The Song of the Three Holy Children (The Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three). 10. The History of Susanna. 11. The History of the Destruction of Bel and Dragon. (9, 10 and 11 are the additions to the book of Daniel.) 12. The Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah. 13. I Maccabees. 14. II Maccabees.
These books were included as a part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D. It is true they were assigned a somewhat inferior rank. They are rejected by the Protestant Church as wholly spurious and not to be allowed even an inferior place in the Sacred Canon.

The Hebrew Canon
The Scriptures of the Old Testament constitute the national literature of the Jews. What is of first importance is what they regarded as their sacred Canon, the full number of writings of which it consisted. There are four general divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures: the Law, or Pentateuch, the Historical Books, the Poetical Books and the Prophets. These appeared at different stages of their history, and consequently individual books were prepared and preserved before there was a collection.
In the reign of Josiah (642-611 B.C.), while the Temple was being repaired, the book of the Law was found. The fact that prophetical writers made use of the works of each other, as in the case of Jeremiah who made use of Isaiah, and the use Daniel made of Jeremiah (Da. 9.2,11,13), clearly shows that these works were in a specific form and available. The references to the sacred writers, following the Exile also proves that the Scriptures had been preserved during the period of the Captivity (Ez. 6.18; Ne. 8.1).
Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about 37 A.D., was fully competent to state what constituted the Old Testament Canon, the Scriptures as recognized by the Jews. He positively declares that the last of the sacred books was written during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia. The reader is referred to our studies in Ezra and Nehemiah. The following statement by Josephus is noteworthy: "Although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf." And his enumeration and description of these books show that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.
The New Testament does not leave us in doubt as to what constituted the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This was clearly indicated by our Lord when He said that all things must be fulfilled which were written "in the Law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms concerning" Himself. The prophets included the historical books, and in the Hebrew Bible the Psalms is the first book in the third division. "With few exceptions, the New Testament quotes directly or refers to all the books of the Old Testament and that is especially true of the various groups of books. Thus they have the highest sanction and acceptance of our Lord and His apostles which establishes for all time their divine and authoritative character."

The Apocrypha in the Septuagint
If the evidence against the canonicity of these books is conclusive, how did they get into the Bible? They were never, at any time, given a place in the Hebrew Bible, and that fact is of supreme significance question is raised as how they got into the Bible. From time to time they were admitted into the Septuagint Version (283-30 B.C.) which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and was used in Alexandria in Egypt almost exclusively by the Greek-speaking Jews as the Word of God. It was either because of lax views of canonicity or for the convenience of using these books ecclesiastically, that they were admitted to this version.
This admission of these books is explained in a satisfactory manner by Bissell: The Septuagint version becoming, subsequently, to the great mass of Gentile Christians, as well as to such Jews as did not understand Hebrew, the authoritative standard, the limits of the true original canon were almost wholly effaced. And in addition to the uncritical character of the period the difficulty was, for a time, still further enhanced by the controversies carried on between the Jews and Christians, each appealing to his own copy of the Scriptures. The fact, too, that the early translations of the vernacular of the people, like the Old Latin, were made from the Septuagint, helped to fasten upon and make hereditary in the Church the Alexandrian confusion and mistake."
(quoted from the Dixon Analytical Bible helps)


It is obvious that these books were never in the Bible in the first place.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:21 PM
A lot of people think that Job reads as a fairy tale too. Whether you think it is literal event, or a parable doesn't stop it being sacred scripture. Some people would even think that Jonah living inside of a large fish would be a fairy tale as well.

Also some believe the exodus events in exodus are nothing but myths and fairy tales.

Even when James Cameron did his "Exodus Decoded", Baptists here scoffed at his discoveries when a thread was created for it. Over at Catholic Answers forum when the same thread was initiated there, there was nothing but kudos for Cameron for PROVING THAT THE EVENTS OF EXODUS INDEED DID HAPPEN!

Catholics cheering a discovery of proof that the events did take place but here Baptists ridiculing it and chiding it.

What's wrong with this picture?

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:26 PM
Also the said missing books and fragments of said books were found and are part of the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. At least the Essenne Jews thought they were God's Word.

We all know how the NT depicts Pharisees and Sadducees. These were the ones responsible for the council of Jamnia.

LeBuick
09-15-2006, 10:30 PM
I'm surprised no one mentioned the Council of Laodicea. Wasn't that when the Bible was, "Cannonized"?

"What are the lost books of the Bible? They were texts and letters suppressed by early "Church Fathers". There was an important historical event, back in the 4th century. It is called the Council of Laodicea. It changed history two significant ways. At this council they determined what would and would not be considered canon. They decided what would and would not be included in the Bible or read at church. (Canon #60.)"

Gold Dragon
09-15-2006, 10:33 PM
They were never accepted by the Jews, and thus were never included in the Jewish canon of the Old Testament Scriptures
A more accurate statement would be that it was not included in the Jewish canon decided by the Council of Jamnia. As others have stated, this council was said to have occurred around 90 AD with Jewish distinction from Christianity as part of its agenda.

Whether the Deuterocanon was accepted by Jews before this council is not clear. I would say there is some evidence that they may have been considered canon by 1st century Jews, but that evidence is not conclusive.

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:35 PM
The Septuagint was written about 250 B.C. It is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
This is not entirely accurate. The LXX is a compilation of translations performed over a period starting (traditionally) in 270 or 272 BC and ending at about 70 BC. It cannot accurately be described as "a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament", because the Hebrew Old Testament did not have the canon then which it has now.

Reading the NT, you will see references to the Law and the Prophets; these are two of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, and did not include Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles, Psalms, or any of the 'Wisdom' books (Proverbs, etc). The Septuagint, however, was a wide project: they translated many texts, including not only those which would, at the Council of Jamnia at the end of the C1st AD, come to be the third part of the Tanakh, the Writings, but also other texts which would not be so included, and would be described as 'apocypha' ("hidden things", but later a shorthand for 'inauthentic'). It should also be noted that the LXX is not just one collection: there are multiple versions, with some variation in the texts that appear in each. We should really say "Septuagints".

Note that the content of the 'apocrypha' depends on the content of the canon. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and others all have different canons, and so all have different lists of 'apocryphal' texts.

The Apocrypha was written between 130 B.C. and 50 A.D.
This is thoroughly in accurate. The apocrypha are all of the ancient writings about God which were not included in the Bible. The earliest, such as the Ethiopic Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs most likely date from some time in the C2nd BC. The latest is probably the Apocalypse of Daniel, which may date from the C9th AD. Then there are all the NT apocrypha, also.

The apocrypha are spurious books that were never accepted by early Christians, never accepted by the Jews, never accepted by the Protestants, and only officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1532. They do not belong in the Bible at all, and in fact, teach doctrine contrary to actual Biblical doctrine.

The Council of Trent officially sanctioned the books which Jerome included in the Latin Vulgate but the Jews did not include in the Tanakh: Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and the other bits of Daniel. They did this because they had always used those texts, and because the Protestants had just condemned those texts.

The Protestant reformers were setting up the Bible as an authority over the Catholic Church, and thus had a new need for unquestionable textual authenticity. They seized upon Jerome's hesitation about those texts, and excised them from the canon. Jerome was uncertain about them because he could not find a Hebrew source text for any of them, only Greek versions, and this led him to note his doubts in the Vulgate, in the prologue to each book.

DHK
09-15-2006, 10:36 PM
Some people would even think that Jonah living inside of a large fish would be a fairy tale as well.

Also some believe the exodus events in exodus are nothing but myths and fairy tales.

Even when James Cameron did his "Exodus Decoded", Baptists here scoffed at his discoveries when a thread was created for it. Over at Catholic Answers forum when the same thread was initiated there, there was nothing but kudos for Cameron for PROVING THAT THE EVENTS OF EXODUS INDEED DID HAPPEN!

Catholics cheering a discovery of proof that the events did take place but here Baptists ridiculing it and chiding it.

What's wrong with this picture?
We accept the events of the Bible by faith. I don't know half of what you are talking about--"Exodus Decoded"--I don't pay attention to junk like that. It is the Word of God that interests me. I know God's Word to be true because of its witness to me. It is alive, a living and powerful Word, It is timeless, unchangeable. It is 66 books written by about 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years without any contradiction, and all speaking about the same thing--redemption through Christ.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:37 PM
Introduction to Bible Canons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Introduction to Jerome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Introduction to the Septuagint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Wikipedia can be a good introduction to all sorts of things, but its accuracy is less than perfect.

A collection of some of the apocrypha:
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

A Jewish source, on the canon of the Bible:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...search=bibl e

Inquiring Mind
09-15-2006, 10:41 PM
We accept the events of the Bible by faith. I don't know half of what you are talking about--"Exodus Decoded"--I don't pay attention to junk like that. It is the Word of God that interests me. I know God's Word to be true because of its witness to me. It is alive, a living and powerful Word, It is timeless, unchangeable. It is 66 books written by about 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years without any contradiction, and all speaking about the same thing--redemption through Christ.
DHKProving the events of Exodus did occur is Junk?

Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote.

Gold Dragon
09-15-2006, 10:49 PM
Proving the events of Exodus did occur is Junk?

Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote.

I don't think calling the ABS and IBS tools of Satan is going to win you too many friends here.

Both were carrying on traditions of what they understood to be God's Holy Word.

Jack Matthews
09-15-2006, 11:30 PM
Yes, the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint did indeed include books that are not Scripture, but no the earliest leaders of the church did not accept them as Scripture.

When in discussions involving Catholics or that could involve Catholics, I sometimes use the old Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for Scripture. It includes some of those non-Scripture books, but my use of it does not mean that I consider those additional books to be Scripture.

First century historian Josephus was a Palestinian Jew just like Jesus and the apostles. In Against Apion 1:8 Josephus reported that no books had been adopted as divine by Palestinian Jews since Persian rule; he describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority.”

I believe that neither Jesus nor the apostles who ran the New Testament church accepted these other pre-New Testament books. Some later Christians did.

You might add, though, that Josephus is hardly an authoritative source on Jewish history. He was a pawn of the Romans, despised by most Jews, and not particularly noted for accuracy in his historical renderings. The manuscript evidence for the accuracy of Josephus is equivocal at best.

The Apocryphal book of Enoch is mentioned by the writer of Jude. That is the only known New Testament reference of the Apocrypha, and while the rest of the New Testament writers do not mention any of them by name, there are places where some similarities in the writing might indicate that they had read them, or knew the contents of some of them.

There is evidence that the early church accepted, read, and used far more than just the canon of either the Old or New Testament. In some cases, heresy developed from some of these works, known as "pseudipigrapha," or "false writings" which claimed to have apostolic authority. Several New Testament books were written to counter their effect and deny their authenticity. It wasn't easy to determine what was authoritative.

When the Apostle Paul told Timothy that all "scripture" was "God-breathed," the scripture that existed at that time was the Jewish Old Testament. Paul was most likely referring to the Septuagint, which did contain the books in question.

DHK
09-15-2006, 11:48 PM
Introduction to Bible Canons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Introduction to Jerome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Introduction to the Septuagint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Wikipedia can be a good introduction to all sorts of things, but its accuracy is less than perfect.

You even misunderstand your own links. What your encyclopedia tells you is that the LXX, is so named for the 70 translators that translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek in the third century. What was later added in (as they became avaible) were apocryphal books. As my previous post indicated the original Septuagint became corrupted. What we don't find is any apocryphal book being quoted in the New Testament, at least not the apocryphal books that the RCC claim to be inspired. Almost every source one can find states that the Septuagint was written (and finished) in the third century--approximately 250 B.C.
SEPTUAGINT
The seventy, is the name of the most ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, and is so called because there were said to have been seventy translators. The accounts of its origin disagree, but it should probably be assigned to the third century before Christ. This ancient version contains many errors, and yet as a whole is a faithful one, particularly in the books of Moses; it is of great value in the interpretation of the Old Testament, and is very often quoted by the New Testament writers, who wrote in the same dialect. It was the parent of the first Latin, the Coptic, and many other versions, and was so much quoted and followed by the Greek and Roman fathers as practically to supersede the original Hebrew, until the last few centuries. The chronology of the Septuagint differs materially from that of the Hebrew text, adding, for example, 606 years between the creation and the deluge. (American Tract Society)
Just one of many sources that I have already given you.
DHK

Darron Steele
09-16-2006, 01:40 AM
Exactly! Understand now! The only reason protestants reject the missing books is because the RCC and the EOC accept them. If it is RCC or EOC, it must be rejected! That is the mentality.

Protestants always use this excuse: "The Jews don't recgonized them as Inspired" That is the one truth Satan wants you to know concerning the council of Jamnia.

What are the other truths?

Truth #2 They officially kicked all Christians out of the synagogues.

Truth #3 They declared a distinction between Jews and Christians.

Truth #4 This is by far the worst as described below:

Also at the same council they modified or added to their daily prayers which are required for all Jews to say everyday:

Officially called the "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?

Are we going to disregard the evidence I brought up for this premise: that before the Council of Jamnia, the Palestinian Jews still did not accept as Scripture any non-Scripture pre-New Testament books?

It looks like we have people who are going to simply cloud the issue with anti-Semitic remarks. WHERE ARE OUR MODERATORS?

Darron Steele
09-16-2006, 02:01 AM
...
There is evidence that the early church accepted, read, and used far more than just the canon of either the Old or New Testament. In some cases, heresy developed from some of these works, known as "pseudipigrapha," or "false writings" which claimed to have apostolic authority. Several New Testament books were written to counter their effect and deny their authenticity. It wasn't easy to determine what was authoritative.
Yes, I am aware that some early post-New Testament Christian writers used non-Scripture books as Scripture. Ignatius quotes a "Gospel of the Nazoreans," so-called 2 Clement quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians, etc., etc..

However, I am more concerned about what the New Testament church did.


When the Apostle Paul told Timothy that all "scripture" was "God-breathed," the scripture that existed at that time was the Jewish Old Testament. Paul was most likely referring to the Septuagint, which did contain the books in question.
Why that by necessity? Paul used both the Septuagint, but he also made his own translations of the Hebrew text.

Further, as in the post you quoted, I pointed out my practice of using the Douay-Rheims Version translated from the Latin Vulgate for Scripture in some cases. Does that mean that I accept the added books in it? No. It means that its renderings of Scripture texts is of interest to me. Same for when Palestinian Jewish-Christians quoted the Septuagint to Greek-reading/hearing Christians; they found its translation of Bible texts to be useful, but did not accept the added books.

Certainly the testimony of Josephus can be discredited on personal grounds. Maybe the Romans loved him and the Jews hated him for defecting to the Romans. He did include some legendary material in his narrations. I do not see what this has to do with his report over what books the Jews had considered Scripture at the time of his writings and before. Historians still refer to the writings of Josephus, so I do not believe he is as unreliable as you seem to be suggesting.

I also believe Paul meant parts of the New Testament. Compare a passage cited as "Scripture" at 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 :
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
Awfully similar; the omission of γαρ = "for" is a grammatical adjustment. As was done in The Believer's Study Bible, I propose that at least part of the New Testament was considered Scripture in the New Testament period.

DHK
09-16-2006, 02:08 AM
Proving the events of Exodus did occur is Junk? Sorry "dude".
Jacobovici, in his movie "Exodus Decoded" didn't prove anything but his own ignorance. The most valuable hisorical reference book in the history of mankind that we possess today is the Bible. The accuracy of those events go unattested. If you can't believe those events by faith, where does that leave your Christianity? Are you a believer. By some of the remarks made by your last post I would admonish you with the words of Paul: "Examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith?" I am not calling you unsaved, so no false accusations. Just take heed to a Biblical admonition. Here is just part of one write up of Jacobovici's movie:
Of course, the most dramatic event recorded in Exodus is the parting of the Red Sea, a scene immortalized by Cecil B. DeMille. But while revealing ancient carvings and hieroglyphics that he argues support the Old Testament account, Jacobovici again offers a scientific explanation. Suggesting that the biblical reference to the "Red Sea" is actually a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew word which meant "Reed Sea" --- a now-dried body of water --- he hypothesizes that the seismic activity caused by the earthquake may have temporarily raised a land bridge for safe passage and the pursuing Egyptians were the unfortunate victims of perfectly-timed tsunamis approaching from the Mediterranean. I laugh. :laugh: :laugh: He suggests that they crossed at the Reed Sea--a now dried body of water. Why not believe the Bible? The "waters opened" before them. There was no earthquake. There were walls of water on both sides. This is described in detail. A tsunami could not have drowned the Egyptians. If it was an earthquake like he contends, then a tsuamani would come from the oceans (as he says). But the Bible says that the walls caved in on the Egyptians, not that they were swept away by waters coming in from the west, from the Mediterranean. The geography is all mixed up according to what is told in the Bible. The purpose of Jacobioviich is plain:
The filmmaker does not try to take "God out of the equation" but merely makes the case that in miraculously intervening in human history God chose to use, rather than suspend, his laws of nature to achieve his divine plan.
http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0818/exodus.htm

It is plain. He doesn't believe in miracles. He is a liberal that really doesn't believe in the Word of God. He is trying to do away with the miraculous of the Word of God. It is not that he doesn't believe in it; it is the opposite. He is trying to discredit it.
Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote. Your anti-semitic remarks will get you nowhere but banned. Becareful what you say in the future.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
09-16-2006, 03:26 AM
Wis. 2:12-20 (KJV)--"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected."

The Christians used this Bible passage often enough in dispute with the Jews that the Pharisees cut the whole book (The Wisdom of Solomon) out of their Scripture canon at Jamnia.

orthodox
09-16-2006, 06:27 AM
The fact is that the original translation did not contain the Apocrypha, and indeed could not contain the Apocrypha.


Hello? The original translation did not contain Joshua through Malachi. So what?


They were never accepted by the Jews,


Huh? The LXX is a Jewish work, how can you say they didn't accept their own work? Proof?


and thus were never included in the Jewish canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, that very canon which we use today. We do not use a canon or body of Scripture that has been corrupted by others.


Others??? What "others"?

orthodox
09-16-2006, 06:38 AM
What we don't find is any apocryphal book being quoted in the New Testament, at least not the apocryphal books that the RCC claim to be inspired.


There may not be any actual quotes but there are many strong allusions. If you pick up a copy of the NA27 Greek text of the New Testament is lists a few hundred of them in the margins. Clearly the apostles were strongly influenced by the apocryphal books.


Almost every source one can find states that the Septuagint was written (and finished) in the third century--approximately 250 B.C.

The first 5 books were, which is sometimes called the LXX proper (Being the part supposedly translated by LXX translators) but that doesn't apply to the rest.

orthodox
09-16-2006, 06:40 AM
Are we going to disregard the evidence I brought up for this premise: that before the Council of Jamnia, the Palestinian Jews still did not accept as Scripture any non-Scripture pre-New Testament books?

They didn't accept as scripture any non-scripture?? LOL.

Where is the proof they didn't accept the apocrypha? I havn't seen THAT proof presented.

orthodox
09-16-2006, 06:43 AM
I also believe Paul meant parts of the New Testament. Compare a passage cited as "Scripture" at 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 :
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου


It's unlikely Luke was written before Paul, more likely it was part of the oral tradition. Anyway whatever, it doesn't help the case here.

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:10 AM
DHK

The missing books were part of the King James Version for 214 years from 1611 to 1827.

The missing books were part of the Latin Vulgate for 1100 years.

The missing books have been a part of the LXX since the last one was added for nearly 2100 years.


If you accept the 90 AD Council of Jamnia's Verdict that the missing books are not inspired why do you not believe their other verdict as well, that there are no new inspired texts written after 400 BC which means that the NT is not inspired by God?

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:15 AM
Anti-Semantic?

Answer this truthfully about this CURSE OF CHRISTIANS.

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

Is it inspired by God or is it inspired by Satan?

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:38 AM
BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
Inasmuch as the fourteen apocryphal have been placed in the Canon of the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been rejected by Protestants, it is necessary that the canonicity of these books be considered. They were not added by the RCC. They were part of the LXX before Christ was even born.

Some of the ECF argued against them, Jerome argued against them, Martin Luther argued against them because Jerome did. Each is entitled to their opinions. Furthermore their was for nearly 400 years differing opinions what Post Resurrection writings were inspired or not.

When God decided to determine the Canon at the 4 Century Coucils, the Holy Spirit possessed the members and gave them direction as to what is inspired and what was not. And at those councils the missing books were affirmed. The 90 AD Jewish Concil of Jamnia never did or every will supercede a Council of Christians.

If these books are a part of the Scriptures, are canonical, we have no right to exclude them, and if the claims made for their canonicity are erroneous they should be rejected. It is at this point the question can be most appropriately considered. They are only not inspired because a Jewish Council in Jamnia in 90 AD said so. This same Council said also that the books that would become the New Testanment were not inspired either. A great quadary here.

If you accept the Jews verdict that these mssing books are not inspired then you must accept their verdict that the NT contains zero inspired books as well. All or None. Must also accept thier curse of Christians. You must accept their verdict that Jesus was not the promised Messiah.

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:42 AM
These books were included as a part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D. It is true they were assigned a somewhat inferior rank. They are rejected by the Protestant Church as wholly spurious and not to be allowed even an inferior place in the Sacred Canon.

The Old Testament Canon


During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:45 AM
Early New Testament Church Christians quotes from those missing books:

The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:47 AM
Here are some quotes from those that wrote after the Canon of the Bible was established in the fourth Century.

Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

Jerome

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 07:56 AM
The Hebrew Canon
The Scriptures of the Old Testament constitute the national literature of the Jews. What is of first importance is what they regarded as their sacred Canon, the full number of writings of which it consisted. There are four general divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures: the Law, or Pentateuch, the Historical Books, the Poetical Books and the Prophets. These appeared at different stages of their history, and consequently individual books were prepared and preserved before there was a collection.The Hebrew Canon (called also the Palenstinian Canon ) was not determined until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Nearly 60 years after the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was Canon done to supercede the LXX (also known as the Alexandrian Canon ) Canon. All actions done during this Council was to undemine the Christians.

what are these actions?

1. Creating distinction between Jews and Heretic Christians.
2. Kicking the Christians out of the Synagogues.
3. Declaration that Jesus was not the promised Messiah.
4. A Curse of Christians added to their daily prayers.
5. Declaring that any writng that did not meet all the following criteria are not God's Word:

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 08:01 AM
Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about 37 A.D., was fully competent to state what constituted the Old Testament Canon, the Scriptures as recognized by the Jews. He positively declares that the last of the sacred books was written during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia. The reader is referred to our studies in Ezra and Nehemiah. The following statement by Josephus is noteworthy: "Although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf." And his enumeration and description of these books show that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.He cites only one person, when there are loads of others to cite from as well that do support the missing books. Excerpts from one person does not constitute fact. Especially when Excerpts from many others dictate otherwise and constitute a majority.

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 08:05 AM
DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT


Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

Inquiring Mind
09-16-2006, 08:06 AM
DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Continued:

Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

Gold Dragon
09-16-2006, 10:22 AM
First century historian Josephus was a Palestinian Jew just like Jesus and the apostles. In Against Apion 1:8 Josephus reported that no books had been adopted as divine by Palestinian Jews since Persian rule; he describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority.”

I believe that neither Jesus nor the apostles who ran the New Testament church accepted these other pre-New Testament books. Some later Christians did.

I've seen dates for Against Apion around 97 bce (ad) which is around the time of the supposed Council of Jamnia. That could easly be interpreted as Josephus describing the sentiment of Jews after debates resulting in the conclusions of the council of Jamnia and may not be reflective of Jewish thought around the time of Christ and before.

Project Guteburg : Against Apion (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/agaap10.txt)

...
8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks
have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records
of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;
and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the
traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval
of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the
time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of
Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after
Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for
the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been
written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been
esteemed of the like authority with the former by our
forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of
prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to
these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for
during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so
bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from
them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to
all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these
books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and,
if occasion be willingly to die for them.

...

Darron Steele
09-16-2006, 11:07 AM
...
I also believe Paul meant parts of the New Testament. Compare a passage cited as "Scripture" at 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 :
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
Awfully similar; the omission of γαρ = "for" is a grammatical adjustment. As was done in The Believer's Study Bible, I propose that at least part of the New Testament was considered Scripture in the New Testament period.
It's unlikely Luke was written before Paul, more likely it was part of the oral tradition. Anyway whatever, it doesn't help the case here.
The Greek word translated "Scripture" refers to a written text.

Conservative reference works have been dating Luke-Acts to c. 62, and the Pauline Pastoral epistles to the mid-late 060's. Maybe theological liberalism's redatings and new conjectures of `what was Scripture when' are simply wrong. Maybe we should just let the evidence speak.

Darron Steele
09-16-2006, 11:09 AM
Written to someone else:
...
Your anti-semitic remarks will get you nowhere but banned. Becareful what you say in the future.
DHK
Thank you DHK.

Jack Matthews
09-16-2006, 11:09 AM
Yes, I am aware that some early post-New Testament Christian writers used non-Scripture books as Scripture. Ignatius quotes a "Gospel of the Nazoreans," so-called 2 Clement quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians, etc., etc..

However, I am more concerned about what the New Testament church did.


Why that by necessity? Paul used both the Septuagint, but he also made his own translations of the Hebrew text.

Further, as in the post you quoted, I pointed out my practice of using the Douay-Rheims Version translated from the Latin Vulgate for Scripture in some cases. Does that mean that I accept the added books in it? No. It means that its renderings of Scripture texts is of interest to me. Same for when Palestinian Jewish-Christians quoted the Septuagint to Greek-reading/hearing Christians; they found its translation of Bible texts to be useful, but did not accept the added books.

Certainly the testimony of Josephus can be discredited on personal grounds. Maybe the Romans loved him and the Jews hated him for defecting to the Romans. He did include some legendary material in his narrations. I do not see what this has to do with his report over what books the Jews had considered Scripture at the time of his writings and before. Historians still refer to the writings of Josephus, so I do not believe he is as unreliable as you seem to be suggesting.

I also believe Paul meant parts of the New Testament. Compare a passage cited as "Scripture" at 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 :
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
Awfully similar; the omission of γαρ = "for" is a grammatical adjustment. As was done in The Believer's Study Bible, I propose that at least part of the New Testament was considered Scripture in the New Testament period.

Good points.

However, what the early New Testament church accepted as scripture is not the only criterion for determining canonicity, and I think part of the argument here is that the apostles and Jesus didn't accept these books. The fact that there are so many similarities and references to things included in the New Testament that have their source in the deuterocanonical books is an indication that the writers of the New Testament used them as scripture.

As to Paul declaring parts of the New Testament to be scripture, I seriously doubt that, since Luke's material is essentially his own and Paul, in spite of his conversion to Christianity, as a Jewish rabbi would never have declared his own writing to be equal to that of the Old Testament. The fact that the church did so later on doesn't change Paul's perspective in writing at the time he penned those words. Certainly the church had the privilege of canonizing what it believed to be inspired, but Paul himself would not have done so.

Josephus is an interesting character to be sure, and his material is not only legendary, but, comparatively, in analyzing historical events, does deserve consideration. On the issue of determining what the Jews of his day considered to be the inspired writing of God, however, perhaps he is a secondary historical source, but certainly not a primary religious one.

I think there is another argument that can be made, however, and that is that the exclusion of these books from the Canon by Protestant Christians doesn't alter the most significant and essential doctrines of the Christian faith. It causes a problem for literal nitpickers, because they have developed a system of convoluted rules for interpretation that generate the consistency they think they need to have in order to maintain their right standing with God, which they base on their own personal work of obedience. But those Christians who are more concerned with the essence of salvation by grace itself, and base their interpretations of scripture on the principles that are taught, rather than on literal adherence to specific points, do not need the deuterocanonical books to have Biblical sufficiency.

EdSutton
09-16-2006, 01:19 PM
Proving the events of Exodus did occur is Junk?

Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote.
Hey!! Not bad!! A 1611/TR type Only, with sympathies toward the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic version of what is or is not inspired Scripture, in the canon, and one according to his or her profile, without a "home church" to boot. Now that is a new combination I've never before encountered!

Guess that 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. Heb. 10:23-25 - NKJV) must not be in this version of what is the canon - ya' think?? ("Sorry dude ", the NKJV happens to be the version I usually use.)

OH, BTW, did you happen to consider that something like thirty of those local churches are found, founded, referred to, or alluded to in the 27 NT books? Just wonderin'.

Ed

DHK
09-16-2006, 03:41 PM
IQ,
Your post, entitled: "DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT," may be considered blasphemous. There is no reference in the NT from any apocrypha. There is no proof, no evidence, nada, zip, nothing. In fact many of the apocryphal books have copied (plagiarized) from the NT. It is called plagiarism because they claim to be original works when indeed they are forgeries--spurious books claiming to have the inspiration of God.
The Old Testament Canon was finished about 450 B.C. This we know for a fact. The very latest date that could be put on the Hebrew canon would be 400. The Jews would not accept any book as part of their canon before that date, and therefore refused everyone of those books, none of which were written before 150 B.C. at the very latest, and some even written after the birth of Christ. That fact alone disqualifes every one of the books of the Apocrypha.

Our Bible is not translated from the Septuagint. The Old Testament is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the same that the Jews used, and the Koine Greek of the New Testament. There was no Septuagint involved here. The Septuagint, as far as we are concerned, is moot. It doesn't matter. It is simply another translation of the Old Testament, and a poor one at that. Since it was originally translated in 250 B.C. it is impossible for the apocryphal books to be contained. Even if the translation took a bit longer as you suggest, it didn't take up to the time that the apocryphal books even began to be written. If the truth be told, it was Origen (a heretic) that began to edit some of the texts of the New Testament as well as add the Apocrypha to the Bible. That is when it became common in the Bible. Up until that time the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Origen published his Bible in classical Greek making many changes (which are reflected in the Critical text), and included the apocrypha in his canon. That is when it became popular. Early believers knew that these books were not inspired.
To say that Jesus quoted from these books is absolute folly if not blasphemy. The very One who gave us the inspired Word would not endorse that which is contrary to the actual inspired revelation of God. He is God's revelation to mankind. The Word was made flesh among us.
DHK

Jack Matthews
09-16-2006, 03:58 PM
IQ,
Your post, entitled: "DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT," may be considered blasphemous. There is no reference in the NT from any apocrypha. There is no proof, no evidence, nada, zip, nothing. In fact many of the apocryphal books have copied (plagiarized) from the NT. It is called plagiarism because they claim to be original works when indeed they are forgeries--spurious books claiming to have the inspiration of God.
The Old Testament Canon was finished about 450 B.C. This we know for a fact. The very latest date that could be put on the Hebrew canon would be 400. The Jews would not accept any book as part of their canon before that date, and therefore refused everyone of those books, none of which were written before 150 B.C. at the very latest, and some even written after the birth of Christ. That fact alone disqualifes every one of the books of the Apocrypha.

Our Bible is not translated from the Septuagint. The Old Testament is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the same that the Jews used, and the Koine Greek of the New Testament. There was no Septuagint involved here. The Septuagint, as far as we are concerned, is moot. It doesn't matter. It is simply another translation of the Old Testament, and a poor one at that. Since it was originally translated in 250 B.C. it is impossible for the apocryphal books to be contained. Even if the translation took a bit longer as you suggest, it didn't take up to the time that the apocryphal books even began to be written. If the truth be told, it was Origen (a heretic) that began to edit some of the texts of the New Testament as well as add the Apocrypha to the Bible. That is when it became common in the Bible. Up until that time the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Origen published his Bible in classical Greek making many changes (which are reflected in the Critical text), and included the apocrypha in his canon. That is when it became popular. Early believers knew that these books were not inspired.
To say that Jesus quoted from these books is absolute folly if not blasphemy. The very One who gave us the inspired Word would not endorse that which is contrary to the actual inspired revelation of God. He is God's revelation to mankind. The Word was made flesh among us.
DHK

Nice theories, but no facts.

DHK
09-16-2006, 07:46 PM
Nice theories, but no facts.
It is basic Bible knowledge that our Old Testament comes from the Hebrew not the Septuagint, as our New Testament comes from the Koine Greek, not the Latin Vulgate. To say otherwise is only to spread one's ignorance of basic Bible knowledge. The traditional Israelites never used the Septuagint, only those Hellenized Jews did. The masoretic Hebrew text, which is still in use today, is the standard text for the Israelites.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
09-16-2006, 09:01 PM
It is basic Bible knowledge that our Old Testament comes from the Hebrew not the Septuagint, as our New Testament comes from the Koine Greek, not the Latin Vulgate. To say otherwise is only to spread one's ignorance of basic Bible knowledge. The traditional Israelites never used the Septuagint, only those Hellenized Jews did. The masoretic Hebrew text, which is still in use today, is the standard text for the Israelites.
DHKIt is basic Christian history that the Old Testament of the Church, the Body of Christ, was the Septuagint. It's the Bible quoted by the apostles and Jesus roughly 80% of the time. It's the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Christians from the time of the apostles to the present; in the early church era, that meant the entire Roman Empire east and south of the Adriatic. It's also one of the two sets of Old Testament scrolls hung right next to those in Hebrew in the synagogues of the pre-Jamnian period, even in Palestine.

DHK
09-16-2006, 10:11 PM
It is basic Christian history that the Old Testament of the Church, the Body of Christ, was the Septuagint. It's the Bible quoted by the apostles and Jesus roughly 80% of the time. It's the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Christians from the time of the apostles to the present; in the early church era, that meant the entire Roman Empire east and south of the Adriatic. It's also one of the two sets of Old Testament scrolls hung right next to those in Hebrew in the synagogues of the pre-Jamnian period, even in Palestine.
Tauf:
Answr me this:
From what manuscripts was the KJV OT translated from, and why?

From what manuscripts was the KJV NT translated from, and why?

DHK
09-17-2006, 01:03 AM
RE: Masoretic Text in Error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul33
Is there any evidence (DSS of Jeremiah) that supports a Hebrew text behind the LXX?

Yes. There are two different types of Hebrew texts represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is the Masoretic text we are so familiar with, which is, for all intents and purposes, identical to our present day Masoretic text. The other is the Vorlage text which seems to be the Hebrew text which underlies the Septuagint.

Quote:
Is there more evidence (DSS) that the MT is a faithful copy of early first century Hebrew texts? Or is the MT a corruption of the ancient Hebrew text?
The evidence seems to indicate the MT we presently use is a faithful transmission of the same text type in use prior to the time of Christ.

Quote:
If there are two Hebrew texts and both are quoted in the NT, what is the significance of this?
In my opinion, none. The Vorlage text is sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, and sometimes uses different words, just as the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts today, but also, just as today, no doctrine of the faith is impacted by those differences.

Quote:
How does any of this relate to the TR issue in the NT?
I don't believe it does except to show us that two different text types can both transmit God's word to us.

Quote:
The claim is made that we know what the originals must have looked like. In light of the two Jeremiahs (DSS evidence), how is that claim established?
The evidence for the MT type text is vastly superior both numerically and contextually than that for the Vorlage type text.

Quote:
What lessons are we to draw from the extensive use of the LXX translation of the Hebrew text by the NT writers?

I am not certain we can dogmatically claim that the NT writers quoted the LXX. In fact a careful comparison of the NT phrases which have been claimed to be from the LXX with the LXX itself shows that no NT quote follows the LXX exactly. That, in my opinion, indicates the NT writers were probably quoting from the same Hebrew text used by the LXX translators and doing there own, and therefore different, translation as they wrote.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=841476&postcount=45

(conversation in Bible Versions forum between Paul33 and Dr. Cassidy)
DHK
http://www.baptistboard.com/images/steelblue/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=841476)

orthodox
09-17-2006, 09:12 AM
IQ,
Your post, entitled: "DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT," may be considered blasphemous. There is no reference in the NT from any apocrypha. There is no proof, no evidence, nada, zip, nothing.


Tell me something. Have you actually read the apocrypha and cross referenced it as you go along with the generally acknowledged allusions to it in the NT? Or do you just enjoy hanging out in bulletin boards pontificating a position?


In fact many of the apocryphal books have copied (plagiarized) from the NT.


Huh? How could they plagerise the NT when they were written prior to the NT? Manuscripts were found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.


It is called plagiarism because they claim to be original works when indeed they are forgeries--spurious books claiming to have the inspiration of God.
The Old Testament Canon was finished about 450 B.C. This we know for a fact.


Proof?


The very latest date that could be put on the Hebrew canon would be 400. The Jews would not accept any book as part of their canon before that date, and therefore refused everyone of those books, none of which were written before 150 B.C. at the very latest, and some even written after the birth of Christ. That fact alone disqualifes every one of the books of the Apocrypha.


How can you say the Jews rejected them when they are contained in the Jewish bible known as the Septuagint??


Our Bible is not translated from the Septuagint.


Who is "our" in this context? Funnily, those of the KJVO persuasion when asked where the word of God was prior to 1611 usually claim it was in the old latin translation. But this translation was made from the Septuagint as were ALL the early Christian translations up until Jerome made the Vulgate around the turn of the 5th century. Even then they continued to use the LXX based latin Psalms and apocrypha.

And as others have pointed out, most of the NT quotations of the OT are from the LXX.


The Septuagint, as far as we are concerned, is moot. It doesn't matter. It is simply another translation of the Old Testament, and a poor one at that. Since it was originally translated in 250 B.C. it is impossible for the apocryphal books to be contained.


WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT CORRECTION ON THIS??????

Only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were originally translated in 250BC.

As for the quality of the LXX, let me give an example where the apostles validate the LXX above the currently extant Hebew:

Matthew 12.21 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 LXX "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 Masoretic Hebrew "and the coastlands wait for his law."

This is just one of many examples where the NT doesn't even make sense without referencing the LXX. If you want to seriously study the NT you *MUST* make reference to the LXX. All serious studies of the NT will not just reference the Hebrew.


Even if the translation took a bit longer as you suggest, it didn't take up to the time that the apocryphal books even began to be written. If the truth be told, it was Origen (a heretic) that began to edit some of the texts of the New Testament as well as add the Apocrypha to the Bible.


What a bunch of baloney. Origen did some work making a revised LXX text that more closely followed the Masoretic Hebrew text (which presumably you would be in favour of!!), but he did it in a very scholarly way, carefully marking what differences there were between the LXX and Masoretic with text critical marks.

As for claiming he added the apocrpha, where is the proof? Have you been caught again manufacturing facts out of whole cloth?


That is when it became common in the Bible. Up until that time the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Origen published his Bible in classical Greek making many changes (which are reflected in the Critical text), and included the apocrypha in his canon.


If the Byzantine church which used the LXX was for some reason following Origen as regards these LXX issues then logically we may assume it followed his New Testament too. That means your KJV is an Origen bible.

You've destroyed your own bible with your irresponsible speculations.

And to throw more spanners into your nonsense, there are many NT manuscripts that pre-date Origen, and which are similar to the critical text, so it is clearly proven that it is not Origen's fault.

Not to mention that scholars that specialize in Septuagint studies believe that Vaticanus' LXX is one of the least influenced by Origen's work.


That is when it became popular. Early believers knew that these books were not inspired.


Proof?



To say that Jesus quoted from these books is absolute folly if not blasphemy. The very One who gave us the inspired Word would not endorse that which is contrary to the actual inspired revelation of God. He is God's revelation to mankind. The Word was made flesh among us.


So now you are judging from your own mind what Jesus would and wouldn't have done. Looks like you put your wisdom above Jesus.

Darron Steele
09-17-2006, 09:13 AM
Regarding Inquiring Mind:
Hey!! Not bad!! A 1611/TR type Only, with sympathies toward the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic version of what is or is not inspired Scripture, in the canon, and one according to his or her profile, without a "home church" to boot. Now that is a new combination I've never before encountered!
Probably Orthodox in religious perspective. The Orthodox typically accept the added "Old Testament" books, but insist upon the Byzantine text on ground of tradition.

orthodox
09-17-2006, 09:16 AM
It is basic Bible knowledge that our Old Testament comes from the Hebrew not the Septuagint, as our New Testament comes from the Koine Greek, not the Latin Vulgate.


If your bible comes from the Hebrew, you are at variance with the early Church.


To say otherwise is only to spread one's ignorance of basic Bible knowledge.


What YOUR bible comes from is not basic bible knowledge, that is just your local custom.


The traditional Israelites never used the Septuagint, only those Hellenized Jews did.


I guess the apostles were Hellenized Jews then since they used the Septuagint. Bring on the Hellenized Jews!!!


The masoretic Hebrew text, which is still in use today, is the standard text for the Israelites.

Yes, it's the standard text for those who crucified Christ and are unbelievers. Good one.

orthodox
09-17-2006, 09:18 AM
Tauf:
Answr me this:
From what manuscripts was the KJV OT translated from, and why?


From the Hebrew because this was the Western tradition post-Jerome.

From what manuscripts was the KJV NT translated from, and why?

A variety of manuscripts, principally Byzantine (Yep, that LXX-using Church!), but also with some readings from the Vulgate and some from Alexandrian and other sources.

orthodox
09-17-2006, 09:28 AM
I am not certain we can dogmatically claim that the NT writers quoted the LXX. In fact a careful comparison of the NT phrases which have been claimed to be from the LXX with the LXX itself shows that no NT quote follows the LXX exactly. That, in my opinion, indicates the NT writers were probably quoting from the same Hebrew text used by the LXX translators and doing there own, and therefore different, translation as they wrote.

More pseudo KJVO garbage.

There are tons of cases where the NT follows the LXX text exactly, in opposition to the currently extant Hebrew. The afore-mentioined Mk 12:21/Is 42:4 is a typical case. Anyone who says otherwise is just begin willfully ignorant.

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

Taufgesinnter
09-17-2006, 11:43 PM
Tauf:
Answr me this:
From what manuscripts was the KJV OT translated from, and why?

From what manuscripts was the KJV NT translated from, and why?The KJV OT was translated partly from the LXX (all those places, pretty much, where the MT contradicts the NT but the NT agrees perfectly with the LXX), the Latin Vulgate, and while consulting earlier English versions such as Douay as well as other languages, but principally from late medieval MSS in the MT tradition. The translators thought that the MT represented as closely as possible the original texts. With the state of biblical archaeology, papyrology and paleography they had to work with, they did a remarkable job.

The KJV NT was translated from MSS in the Byzantine tradition preserved as the received text of the Orthodox Church. They had a limited range and number of MSS, but other than inserting some verses from the Vulgate not found in Greek, they did exceptionally well--noting, of course, that most of the NT was Tyndale's version essentially intact.

DHK
09-18-2006, 02:30 AM
Tell me something. Have you actually read the apocrypha and cross referenced it as you go along with the generally acknowledged allusions to it in the NT? Or do you just enjoy hanging out in bulletin boards pontificating a position?

Huh? How could they plagerise the NT when they were written prior to the NT? Manuscripts were found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.

How can you say the Jews rejected them when they are contained in the Jewish bible known as the Septuagint?? The Canon
Because the evidence is overwhelming.

Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious

By William Webster


A full documentation of the information contained in this article is now available in a new book offered through Christian Resources titled The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. This book is a survey of the history of the Apocrypha from the age of Judaism to the Reformation. It provides translations of the comments of major theologians from the time of Jerome to the Reformation, the majority of which have never before been available in English.

It is often asserted by Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants must rely on their tradition in order to know which books ought to be included in the Biblical Canon. The argument says that since there is no “inspired table of contents” for the Bible, then we are forced into relying upon tradition to dictate which books belong in the Bible, and which books do not. It was the church of Rome, these apologists allege, which determined the canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), and it is only due to this, that Protestants know which books are inspired, and which are not. Consequently, it is the Roman Church which should be submitted to on issues of faith.

The argument of Roman Catholics for the Canon is spurious on a number of counts.

First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Canon).

There are major fathers in the Church prior to the North African Councils who rejected the judgment of these councils such as Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus and a host of others. They hold to the view, generally speaking, that the Old Testament books were 22 in number or sometimes listed as 24 depending on how the books were grouped together. This corresponds to the Jewish canon which did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had Jewish teachers, rejected the Apocrypha because those books were not recognized as canonical by the Jews. Some have suggested that the Septuagint included these books as canonical which is proof that the Alexandrian Jews had a broader canon than the Jews of Palestine but this is untrue. They make this assertion because the apocryphal books are included in some of the early manuscripts we have of the Septuagint. But all that tells you is that the Septuagint included the books of the Apocrypha along with the canonical books of the Old Testament for reading purposes, not that they were received as canonical. The only manuscripts we posses of the Septuagint are of Christian origin from the 4th and 5th centuries so they are not necessarily reflective of the Jews of Alexandria at all. Also, these Septuagint manuscripts contain works such as III Maccabbees which were never received as canonical. In addition, Origen and Athanasius who were from Alexandria both reject the Apocryphal books as being canonical. There are a couple that Athanasius does receive such as Baruch but he mistakenly thought such a work was part of canonical Jeremiah.

Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. In addition, those councils actually contradict the Council of Trent on an important point. Firstly, Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

A second major point that proves the Roman Catholic claims to be spurious is the fact that the universal practice of the Church as a whole up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. Those books were permissible to be read in the Church for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for the establishing of doctrine. This is why I believe that the term canonical in the early Church had 2 meanings, one broad in the sense that it encompassed all the books which were permissible to be read in the Church and another narrow which included only those books which were authoritative for the establishment of doctrine.

DHK
09-18-2006, 02:34 AM
continued from last post:

Jerome's views are as follows:

These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures...Let her begin by learning the Psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Saviour declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Saviour, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater..."(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Rufinus who was a contemporary of Jerome's, a fellow student with him at Rome. He dies shortly after 410 A.D. He writes these comments on the Canon AFTER the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:

"And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha.' These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

orthodox
09-18-2006, 07:01 AM
DHK - first problem, there is no evidence that the so-called 22 books correspond to the protestant 39 books. In fact, as I've already pointed out, many of these Church Fathers that you list here in support of the 22 books explicely include some or all of the apocrypha in that 22 count.

Secondly, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I could care less what Trent said.

Thirdly there is a very bold claim here that assumes what it doesn't prove - i.e. that the universal practice of the Church up to the Reformation was to follow Jerome. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church experienced no reformation and could care less what happened at Trent, the claim is laughable and so obviously untrue as to not deserve comment, especially without proof.

Fourthly, it isn't clear that Jerome was arguing against the apocrypha so much as merely relating the opinion of the unbelieving Jews. See the Jerome quotation earlier in the thread where in regards the apocrypha he says to include it on the grounds that "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?" But in the place where Jerome gives the opinion that the apostles always used the Hebrew, he clearly erred as the evidence already presented shows.

So then what are we left with? We can argue my church father against your church father, and you have no canon. Or you can accept the judgement of the Church. What will it be, to have or not to have a bible??

DHK
09-18-2006, 01:56 PM
DHK - first problem, there is no evidence that the so-called 22 books correspond to the protestant 39 books. In fact, as I've already pointed out, many of these Church Fathers that you list here in support of the 22 books explicely include some or all of the apocrypha in that 22 count.

I studied Hebrew in college. I personally own a copy of the MT. It has only 22 books. What further evidence do you need?

DHK
09-18-2006, 03:00 PM
THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Hebrew arrangement

Torah
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Nebi-im (prophets)
Joshua
Judges (and Ruth)
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah (and (Lamen.)
Ezekiel
The Twelve

Kethub-im (psalms or writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth (if not with Judges)
Lamentations (if not with Jer.)
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
(22-24)


This is the order of the books of the Hebrew Bible I also have a copy of the Septuagint. It was published in 1879 by Samuel Bagster and Sons in London. It does not contain the Apocrypha, but in its preface gives good information of the history of the Septuagint, why its copy is reliable, and how many others came to be corrupted.
DHK

DHK
09-18-2006, 03:47 PM
WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT CORRECTION ON THIS??????

Only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were originally translated in 250BC.

As for the quality of the LXX, let me give an example where the apostles validate the LXX above the currently extant Hebew:

Matthew 12.21 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 LXX "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 Masoretic Hebrew "and the coastlands wait for his law."

This is just one of many examples where the NT doesn't even make sense without referencing the LXX. If you want to seriously study the NT you *MUST* make reference to the LXX. All serious studies of the NT will not just reference the Hebrew.

Why won't you tell the truth? Are you deliberately misleading, telling lies, or what? What Septuagint says what you are proclaiming it says. Here is the proper information:

Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV

Matthew 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Verse 17. That it might be fulfilled, etc. Matthew here quotes a passage from Isa 43:1-4, to show the reason why he thus retired from his enemies, and sought concealment…(Barnes)
Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV
Verse 21. And in his name, etc. The Hebrew in Isaiah is, "And the isles shall wait for his law." The idea is, however, the same. The isles denote the Gentiles, or a part of the Gentiles--those out of Judea. The meaning is, that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and that they should receive it.

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. KJV

Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited. (LXX)

The LXX in no way reflects what you claim it does. I have quoted it directly from the copy which I own--both Greek and it's translation. I am familiar with both.

DHK

orthodox
09-18-2006, 06:34 PM
I studied Hebrew in college. I personally own a copy of the MT. It has only 22 books. What further evidence do you need?

LOL, something a lot better than a Jewish text printed in the 19th century in London.

If you'd done even the least amount of study in the ancient canonical issues surrounding the 22 books you would know that exactly what constitutes the 22 books there was no agreement on in the ancient world. I already gave examples in this thread but you simply won't be corrected. In fact some referred to the 24 book canon, so not even that was agreed on.

I quote from "The formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee McDonald P63 - "None of the ancient Jewish writings that identify a 22 book canon specify what what those biblical books were".... "The 22 book lists vary even among church fathers".... "The 22 book canon at the council of Laodicia adds Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah twith the list that Melito of Sardis found"... "Melito's 22 books includes the Wisdom of Solomon, but excludes Esther".... "Origen includes the Epistle of Jeremiah as does Cyril".... "Gregory of Nazianzus's 22 book list excludes Esther also."...

Consider yourself refuted, and your 19th century Jewish text is irrelevant. Why don't you ask the same Jews what the NT canon is, it would make just as much sense.

orthodox
09-18-2006, 08:43 PM
Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. KJV

Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited. (LXX)

The LXX in no way reflects what you claim it does. I have quoted it directly from the copy which I own--both Greek and it's translation. I am familiar with both.


Huh? I think you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Here is the Brenton translation online:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html

Is 42:4 LXX "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

And if we want to look at the Greek:

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_042.htm

The end of the verse is exactly as I quoted in my previous message:

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

the name of Him gentiles they trust

That's an exact quote of the Greek of Mt 12:21.

Where your quote comes from I can't even figure out. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Greek LXX of Is 42:4. If you're so familiar with the Greek of the LXX you would be able to see that. The fact that doesn't even bear a vague resemblance to the Hebrew either should be setting off warning bells in your head.

DHK
09-19-2006, 12:06 AM
Your so-called "Brention" translation:
He shall shine out, and shall not be (http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html#b) discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

The KJV:
saiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The LXX
Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

Note the above translations. As mentioned in a previous post the LXX is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is akin to those who favor the KJV, an accurate translation to using the RSV, one that is not so accurate.
Whenever one of the NT authors referenced the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew, meaning was always lost, as it is in any translation. Again, the LXX is only a translation even if it was quoted in the NT, of which there is no hard proof.
The translation I have is a book, one that cannot be tampered with. It is old. And as far as translations go, as far as I can see it would be reliable to what the original LXX would have been. It does not claim to have an "editor."

Now examine the NT objectively.
There are no quotes in the NT from any of the fourteen apocryphal books, none.
In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament, that the law, the writings, and the prophets are to be esteemed more highly than what he has to say. The apocryphal books were never considered on the same level as the Old Testament. They were not inspired Scripture.
Any of the Apostles such as Matthew would have been so familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have been able to quote it from memory in the Hebrew, and then give his own translation. His translation would not be word for word with the LXX. It does not say in Matthew that he is quoting from the LXX, and there is no reason to assume such. Since the passage in Mat.12:17-21 was inscripturated in Greek, it is the Greek that is important. Isaiah's work originally came from Hebrew. Either way, no matter which way you look at it, there was a translation made from Hebrew to Greek. In translation, meaning is always lost. However, what is written in the NT is what is written precisely the way the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written. We accept that by faith.
Thus "Brenton's" translation cannot be demonstrated to be accurate at all.
One can easily see the difference between the two translations both claiming to be the "Septuagint." That alone puts the Septuagint in question as an accurate translation and as a preserved translation. The Apostles were more prone to use the Hebrew, even as Paul did when he spoke to the Jews in the Hebrew language:

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them [b]in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

The Jews respected and knew the Hebrew language. It was their sacred language in which they were well acquinted. There is nothing that they studied more than the Scriptures in their own language. It was only later when the churches spread out among the Gentiles did the Septuagint gain any usefulness among the common person. The Jews still had great respect for their own language.
John uses many Hebrew words in his gospel, and at the same time gives the meaning of them for the reader. (ex. Eli, Eli, lama...) The Apostles quoted from the Hebrew. We have no evidence that they quoted from the LXX, and definitely no evidence that they ever quoted from any Apocryphal book. And up to this point none has been given.
DHK

orthodox
09-19-2006, 02:00 AM
Your so-called "Brention" translation:
He shall shine out, and shall not be (http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html#b) discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

The KJV:
saiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The LXX
Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

Note the above translations. As mentioned in a previous post the LXX is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is akin to those who favor the KJV, an accurate translation to using the RSV, one that is not so accurate.
Whenever one of the NT authors referenced the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew, meaning was always lost, as it is in any translation. Again, the LXX is only a translation even if it was quoted in the NT, of which there is no hard proof.
The translation I have is a book, one that cannot be tampered with. It is old. And as far as translations go, as far as I can see it would be reliable to what the original LXX would have been. It does not claim to have an "editor."


Look, I've documented my sources. I've provided the Greek (which I can read BTW). I can see that Brenton's English translation agrees with the Greek, because I understand both and they match.

Then here you come along saying that the LXX says something completely different to what everybody else thinks the LXX says and unrecognizable compared to the Hebrew too.

Either document your sources or admit that you are smoking crack cocaine.


Now examine the NT objectively.
There are no quotes in the NT from any of the fourteen apocryphal books, none.


You never answered my question. Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions?


In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament, that the law, the writings, and the prophets are to be esteemed more highly than what he has to say.


So many errors in so little space. Firstly, it doesn't say that. Secondly the prologue was not written by Sirach it is a translator's note, it is not part of the text.


Any of the Apostles such as Matthew would have been so familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have been able to quote it from memory in the Hebrew, and then give his own translation.


Firstly, how do you know? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more in common use, so you have no idea what version he was most familiar with. As a tax collector working with the secular authorities we might say with more certainty he knew the languages of the gentiles.

Secondly, for all your whining and obfuscation, the fact remains that he did quote the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I gave you one example which you are trying to wallpaper over, but I could give many many more. To say otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant.


His translation would not be word for word with the LXX.


But it IS word for word. Pity you theories don't match reality.


It does not say in Matthew that he is quoting from the LXX, and there is no reason to assume such.


No reason to assume such??!?! You're just begin willfully ignorant. The apostles often quote the LXX word for word even when it disagrees substantially with the later Masoretic text.


Since the passage in Mat.12:17-21 was inscripturated in Greek, it is the Greek that is important. Isaiah's work originally came from Hebrew. Either way, no matter which way you look at it, there was a translation made from Hebrew to Greek. In translation, meaning is always lost.


Whatever the shortcomings of the LXX may be, it was good enough for the apostles to use.


Thus "Brenton's" translation cannot be demonstrated to be accurate at all.


Forget Brenton's translation. I only cited that to show that I know what I'm talking about, and you're telling fairy tales. The important part is the Greek text of the LXX which agrees with Matthew in opposition to the later Hebrew.


One can easily see the difference between the two translations both claiming to be the "Septuagint." That alone puts the Septuagint in question as an accurate translation and as a preserved translation.


Huh? The Septuagint is a Greek text, the translations are not the LXX. I can read the Greek and I know your so-called translation has no resemblance to the Greek.


The Apostles were more prone to use the Hebrew, even as Paul did when he spoke to the Jews in the Hebrew language:


Let's talk about Paul then. He occasionally uses the Hebrew, but more often he uses the LXX.

Take a look at this list of Pauline quotes compared to the LXX.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

As you can see, where the LXX and Hebrew differ, Paul usually takes the side of the LXX.


Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them [b]in the Hebrew tongue, saying,


Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Secondly the Hebrew tongue isn't even biblical ancient Hebrew, but rather it is Aramaic.


The Jews respected and knew the Hebrew language. It was their sacred language in which they were well acquinted. There is nothing that they studied more than the Scriptures in their own language. It was only later when the churches spread out among the Gentiles did the Septuagint gain any usefulness among the common person.


This is willful ignorance, plain and simple.

Taufgesinnter
09-19-2006, 02:04 AM
John uses many Hebrew words in his gospel, and at the same time gives the meaning of them for the reader. (ex. Eli, Eli, lama...) Wasn't that Aramaic?

DHK
09-19-2006, 03:51 AM
Look, I've documented my sources. I've provided the Greek (which I can read BTW). I can see that Brenton's English translation agrees with the Greek, because I understand both and they match.

Then here you come along saying that the LXX says something completely different to what everybody else thinks the LXX says and unrecognizable compared to the Hebrew too.

Either document your sources or admit that you are smoking crack cocaine. No need to cast such aspersions. Do I claim that you are on cocaine? :eek:
I don't always use the internet to document my sources, nor do I have a need to. I have a personal library of over two thousand books. If you do not accept the documentation that I gave then that is your problem. But don't infer that I am a liar.

The LXX does say something completely different than what you claimed it said.. I have it right before me. What else am I to think--that books lie? I have a copy of the original translation of the LXX, and you copy somebody's revision off of the internet that you don't know anything about and then think that you have something accurate. I believe that the hard copy of the Septuagint, such as I have has the better chance of being more accurate than something posted on the internet somewhere. If you want all the documentation here it is:

THE
SEPTUAGINT VERSION

of

THE OLD TESTAMENT

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION

and with

Various Readings and Critical Notes

LONDON:
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS,
15, Paternoster Row.
1879 That is as much documentation as this book will give you. I hope you are satisfied. I have been in the ministry for 30 years. Much of what I tell you is basic common Biblical knowledge which I don't have to look up and document.
You never answered my question. Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions? Yes, I have read the foolishness of Daniel being in the Daniel's den a third time. An angel appears to a prophet by the name of Obadiah with a basket of food, and commands him to take to Daniel who is in the lion's den. Obadiah answers indignantly: "I know not this Daniel, nor will I take this food to him." Whereupon the angel grabs the hair of Obadiah and carries him through the air and sets him down in the midst of the den of lions that Daniel may eat his lunch.
--Now isn't that a nice fairy tale. :rolleyes: It has no bearing in history, cannot be proved historically, archeologically or in any other way. It is a fable and that is all. It is a totally fabricated story without any substance of inspiration, authority of God, prophetic demeanour, etc. It is only a story and that is all. It is not Scripture.
The next story is just as bad--the story of Daniel and Bel and Dagon. It is another fairy tale story, as is the story of Suzzanah. These are fictitious. Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, and as I implied earlier, was ready to quote to you the prologue of Sirach (if need be) to demonstrate that even Sirach does not believe that the Apocrypha has the same authority as the Hebrew Old Testament.
So many errors in so little space. Firstly, it doesn't say that. Secondly the prologue was not written by Sirach it is a translator's note, it is not part of the text. [The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.] my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. Firstly, how do you know? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more in common use, so you have no idea what version he was most familiar with. As a tax collector working with the secular authorities we might say with more certainty he knew the languages of the gentiles. Because I have studied extensively the manner and education of the Jews.
They grew up in the synagogues during the intertestamental period when the Temple was not repaired. Even in the time of Christ the synagogues remained as the training and educational institutions for the Jews. It was there that the Jews learned to read the Torah, and their sacred language, Hebrew. They all learned it. It was obligatory. It was the national language of the Israelites, as it is today, just as Arabic is to the Muslim. They need it to read their Holy Scriptures. A translation will not do. Remember we are speaking primarily about the Apostles here, especially when referring to the passage in Matthew. I have already referenced you a couple passages in Acts where Paul spoke in Hebrew to the entire nation. And you still don't think that the nation didn't understand Hebrew? Amazing! Is this an admission that you don't believe Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more you say. The Bible says differently.
Matthew knew Hebrew fluently, as well as Greek--the common language of the people, as well as Latin--the official language of the government. They were not uneducated people.
DHK

DHK
09-19-2006, 03:51 AM
continued:
Secondly, for all your whining and obfuscation, the fact remains that he did quote the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I gave you one example which you are trying to wallpaper over, but I could give many many more. To say otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant. You state what you cannot prove. It is your opinion and nothing else. Prove it.
But it IS word for word. Pity you theories don't match reality. You don't get it do you?
First, it is obvious that you are using a spurious version of the Septuagint, which I have already demonstrated it to you. I don't know where you got it from except that it is from the internet, which doesn't count for much.
Second, We know that the Jews, such as Matthew were well educated in the Hebrew tongue just as Paul was when he spoke to an entire crowd in such.
Third, to give you an example I will give you a personal one. I am a missionary and I have studied at least five different languages and am fluent in a few of them. I also do translational work. Sometimes I preach from the KJV and then do my own translation for the sake of a mixed audience. When I come across some well memorized verses such as John 3:16; 14:6 that I have memorized in the KJV, I simply translate from the KJV into the other language. I don't memorize all the verses that I have memorized in the KJV in each different language that I know. I simply translate them in my mind as I preach. I doubt that Matthew even had a copy of the LXX before him. He no doubt simply translated what Isaiah had spoken in his own mind, having known the Scriptures well. Or he could have had the MT right before him and simply given a translation of his own right then and there. Whatever, it was from the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily from the LXX as you claiim. It is only your opinion that it is from the LXX. You have no proof.
No reason to assume such??!?! You're just begin willfully ignorant. The apostles often quote the LXX word for word even when it disagrees substantially with the later Masoretic text. When you don't have an argument to present one resorts to name-calling which you have done. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles used the LXX, and you haven't given any satisfactory evidence to convince anyone here.
Whatever the shortcomings of the LXX may be, it was good enough for the apostles to use. Don't make statements that you can't prove. Even if perchance that they did use it, it doesn't mean that they put their stamp of approval on it. Paul, in Titus chapter one quoted from a Cretian philosophers. Are, therefore, all the Cretian philosophers inspired of God? Are all their works good "translations?"
In the Book of Acts he quotes from a Greek poet? Are all Greek poets therefore inspired? Are all their translations good translations. Does he condone them all? Do you see how ludicrous your position is?
Forget Brenton's translation. I only cited that to show that I know what I'm talking about, and you're telling fairy tales. The important part is the Greek text of the LXX which agrees with Matthew in opposition to the later Hebrew. The important part is that it differs from other editions of the Septuagint making what you have totally unreliable. So how do you know that it agrees with Matthew or not? If there is that much disagreement, maybe you don't have the Septuagint at all.
Huh? The Septuagint is a Greek text, the translations are not the LXX. I can read the Greek and I know your so-called translation has no resemblance to the Greek. The LXX is only a translation from the Hebrew, and that is all. You must keep that in mind. So what if it is written in Greek. That doesn't matter. The OT was written in Hebrew, and that is what God inspired. God did not inspire the Spanish, French or KJV. He inspired the Hebrew OT, and the Greek NT. He did not inspire the Greek OT. That is not what the prophets of the OT wrote in. "Holy men of God were moved of the Holy Spirit..." Those holy men of God were not the seventy or so translators of the Septuagint.
Let's talk about Paul then. He occasionally uses the Hebrew, but more often he uses the LXX. There is no evidence that he uses the LXX at all. Speak of that which you can demonstrate.
Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Secondly the Hebrew tongue isn't even biblical ancient Hebrew, but rather it is Aramaic. The Bible is irrelevant. That is your position. I quote the Bible for you and you say it is irrelevant.
This is willful ignorance, plain and simple. Check again what I said about the Jews compared to Gentile churches. If you don't accept it, then it is you that lives in wilful ignorance not I.
DHK

orthodox
09-19-2006, 07:32 AM
That is as much documentation as this book will give you. I hope you are satisfied. I have been in the ministry for 30 years. Much of what I tell you is basic common Biblical knowledge which I don't have to look up and document.


Thankyou for finally documenting your source so that I can refer to it and see what's going on. The Bagster editions are of Brenton's text, and now we can see that your error is that you don't understand Roman numerals and you are refering to Isaiah 62:4 instead of Isaiah 42:4. You need to look for XLII not LXII.


Yes, I have read the foolishness of Daniel being in the Daniel's den a third time. An angel appears to a prophet by the name of Obadiah with a basket of food, and commands him to take to Daniel who is in the lion's den. Obadiah answers indignantly: "I know not this Daniel, nor will I take this food to him." Whereupon the angel grabs the hair of Obadiah and carries him through the air and sets him down in the midst of the den of lions that Daniel may eat his lunch.
--Now isn't that a nice fairy tale. :rolleyes: It has no bearing in history, cannot be proved historically, archeologically or in any other way. It is a fable and that is all. It is a totally fabricated story without any substance of inspiration, authority of God, prophetic demeanour, etc. It is only a story and that is all. It is not Scripture.
The next story is just as bad--the story of Daniel and Bel and Dagon. It is another fairy tale story, as is the story of Suzzanah. These are fictitious. Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, and as I implied earlier, was ready to quote to you the prologue of Sirach (if need be) to demonstrate that even Sirach does not believe that the Apocrypha has the same authority as the Hebrew Old Testament.


Still no answer to the question. Maybe if I repeat it a third time I'll get lucky. "Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT?"



[The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.] Because I have studied extensively the manner and education of the Jews.
They grew up in the synagogues during the intertestamental period when the Temple was not repaired. Even in the time of Christ the synagogues remained as the training and educational institutions for the Jews. It was there that the Jews learned to read the Torah, and their sacred language, Hebrew. They all learned it. It was obligatory. It was the national language of the Israelites, as it is today, just as Arabic is to the Muslim. They need it to read their Holy Scriptures. A translation will not do. Remember we are speaking primarily about the Apostles here, especially when referring to the passage in Matthew. I have already referenced you a couple passages in Acts where Paul spoke in Hebrew to the entire nation. And you still don't think that the nation didn't understand Hebrew? Amazing! Is this an admission that you don't believe Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more you say. The Bible says differently.
Matthew knew Hebrew fluently, as well as Greek--the common language of the people, as well as Latin--the official language of the government. They were not uneducated people.


<sigh> The language of the Hebrew people during the 1st century was NOT biblical Hebrew. Yes, it is a "Hebrew language" in the sense that it is a language of the Hebrew people, but it is not the Hebrew of the old testament. Everybody knows that, it is why the Passion of the Christ movie was made in Aramaic.

I quote Bruce Metzger "The New Testament, Its Background Growth and Content, P32: "Greek was widely understood in Palestine, particularly in the north which was commonly called the Galillee of the Gentiles. Bilingualism was an economic necessity. Bilingualism had its roots in the 2nd century before Christ when the Seleucid rulers promoted the deliberate poicy of Grecizing the Jewish population of Palestine. The other language in common in Palestine was Aramaic, the mother tongue of the Jews. Though the rabbis and learned scribes still had a fluent command of the classical Hebrew of the OT for the ordinary Jewish populace biblical Hebrew was approaching the status of a dead language".


Now where is your documentation for your unheard of fabrications?

DHK
09-19-2006, 02:35 PM
Still no answer to the question. Maybe if I repeat it a third time I'll get lucky. "Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT?"
ORTH: Have you read the Apocrypha?

DHK: Yes I have read the Apocrypha. I have read the NT. There is nothing in the NT that quotes the Apocrypha, no reference whatsoeve.

Orth: Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT.

Conclusion--If there are well known allusions to the NT is the Apocrypha then the only conclusion one can come to is that the apocrypha is a complete forgery written well after the NT was written perhaps in the first or second centuries (100's or 200's). But it is claimed to be Old Testament Scripture. How do you get NT allusions or references in Old Testament books? Is this what you are asking. I quoted you (or at least paraphrased what was supposed to be in the last two chapters added on to Daniel. How is this an allusion to the NT? You tell me. Isn't it odd how you never commented on the fairy tale type story I quoted you out of the apocrypha--so typical of it.
Isn't it odd how you never commented on the prologue of Sirach who basicially denies inspiration of the apocrypha, even though his is one of the books of the apocrypha?

Your question is moot. It needs no answering. It is like asking: "Did you find all the quotes of Jesus in the Book of Deuteronomy? :rolleyes:
DHK

BrianT
09-19-2006, 03:46 PM
Sort of on topic - is it because of the use of the LXX by the early church that the English names of the book of the Old Testment are what they are now? E.g. "Genesis" (the Greek name, same as the LXX) instead of "Bereshit" (the Hebrew name), "Exodus" vs. "Shemot", "Leviticus" vs. "Vayikra", etc.?

orthodox
09-19-2006, 06:30 PM
Come on, you need to do bunch of backpeddling now that you were busted confusing Is 62:4 and 42:4, now you have to admit Mt was quoting the LXX.



Orth: Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT.

Conclusion--If there are well known allusions to the NT is the Apocrypha then the only conclusion one can come to is that the apocrypha is a complete forgery written well after the NT was written perhaps in the first or second centuries (100's or 200's).

You're just being difficult playing off an ambiguity in what I said. Let me make it less ambiguous by rearrranging the phrases:

Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing to the NT the well known allusions?

The allusions go from the apocrypha to the NT in case you're still being difficult, and to refresh your very short memory, I already pointed out the apocrypha is found in the pre-Christian dead sea scrolls.

It seems to me you don't want to know the truth, you just want have an argument.

orthodox
09-19-2006, 06:31 PM
Sort of on topic - is it because of the use of the LXX by the early church that the English names of the book of the Old Testment are what they are now? E.g. "Genesis" (the Greek name, same as the LXX) instead of "Bereshit" (the Hebrew name), "Exodus" vs. "Shemot", "Leviticus" vs. "Vayikra", etc.?

Good point, tis so.

Gold Dragon
09-19-2006, 09:19 PM
It seems to me you don't want to know the truth, you just want have an argument.

That is DHK's general MO. I don't bother arguing with him and simply show facts to correct his clear mistatements and ignore his unfounded refutations.

gb93433
09-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote.

The are over 100 books from the NT Apocrypha and the OT Pseudepigrapha which are not in the Catholic Bible. How did the Catholics decide that most of those books should not be in their Bible?

Inquiring Mind
09-20-2006, 02:25 PM
The are over 100 books from the NT Apocrypha and the OT Pseudepigrapha which are not in the Catholic Bible. How did the Catholics decide that most of those books should not be in their Bible?The same way they weeded out 27 books from the 100 or so post Ressurection wrtings that cropped up over the time until the ECF determined what was canon by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

DHK
09-20-2006, 06:47 PM
Come on, you need to do bunch of backpeddling now that you were busted confusing Is 62:4 and 42:4, now you have to admit Mt was quoting the LXX. I admit my mistake in references. It makes no difference. There is still a translational between Hebrew and Greek no matter which way you look at it, and there still is no proof that it is a quotation from the LXX. Isn't it odd that you should choose one of the shortest verses as your "proof text?"
You're just being difficult playing off an ambiguity in what I said. Let me make it less ambiguous by rearrranging the phrases:

Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing to the NT the well known allusions?

The allusions go from the apocrypha to the NT in case you're still being difficult, and to refresh your very short memory, I already pointed out the apocrypha is found in the pre-Christian dead sea scrolls.

It seems to me you don't want to know the truth, you just want have an argument. OK, I'll play your game. I'll go back to where some of these texts are posted and randomly choose some and check them out and then post the results. I don't have time to an exhaustive study so it will just be the first few that I happen to choose.

Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

2Mac 12:43
And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to
the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to
Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and
honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:

2Mac 12:44
For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have
risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the
dead.

2Mac 12:45
And also in that he perceived that there was great favour
laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good
thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that
they might be delivered from sin.
--You have got to be kidding. Are you really seriious--that Paul was referring to the Book of Maccabbees here.

No, he wasn't. Rest assured. Here is what the verse says:


1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
--He is referring to a common pagan practice, current at that time, and using it for an illustrative purpose. It has nothing to do with any apocryphal book. How ludicrous!


1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2Mac 12:15

Wherefore Judas with his company, calling upon the great Lord
of the world, who without rams or engines of war did cast down
Jericho in the time of Joshua, gave a fierce assault against the
walls,

2Mac 13:4
But the King of kings moved Antiochus' mind against this
wicked wretch, and Lysias informed the king that this man was
the cause of all mischief, so that the king commanded to bring
him unto Berea, and to put him to death, as the manner is in
that place. And just where is there even a remote similarity here. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives a glorious description of God Almighty. You give a reference to "Judas...who did cast down Jericho"--as if that is accuate??
And then a quote about the King, presumably God, moving Antioch agaisnt some wrate or wickedness. How do we know that this was true--was it God that moved Antioch? Perhaps it was Satan. Don't insult Paul and the Holy Spirit by tying in this passage with Paul's writings. Both Paul and God are more educated than that.


Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Sir 29:11
Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold. To lay your treasure up in heaven is a common expression.
To accuse Jesus of quoting from Sirach is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words
as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Sirach.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Jdt 11:19
And I will lead thee through the midst of Judea, until thou
come before Jerusalem; and I will set thy throne in the midst
thereof; and thou shalt drive them as sheep that have no
shepherd, and a dog shall not so much as open his mouth at thee:
for these things were told me according to my foreknowledge, and
they were declared unto me, and I am sent to tell thee.

Context:
Jdt 11:1
Then said Holofernes unto her, Woman, be of good comfort,
fear not in thine heart: for I never hurt any that was willing
to serve Nabuchodonosor, the king of all the earth.
--Are you saying that this woman Judith is Jesus? What blasphemy!!

How you get a common phrase like "sheep without a shepherd" from this verse, and then blaspheme Christ by accusing him of quoting from Judith is beyond me.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
09-20-2006, 07:33 PM
To lay your treasure up in heaven is a common expression. Is it now? Prove it.

To accuse Jesus of quoting from Sirach is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Sirach. let's change that quote up a bit:

To accuse Jesus of quoting from Psalms is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Psalms.

DHK
09-20-2006, 07:45 PM
Is it now? Prove it.
As a paraphrase it is common.
All you have is three of four words.
"Lay up your treasure."
That is all. How can you even consider that a quote from the Apocrypha. It is ludicrous to take four words from the Apocrypha and claim that it is a quote. That is really stretching it.

let's change that quote up a bit:

To accuse Jesus of quoting from Psalms is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Psalms.
Everyone--Jew and Gentile--was familiar with the Psalms, as inspired Scripture. Jesus quoted from that which was inspired Scripture. He never quoted from the Apocypha, and neither did any other writer of the NT. You have yet to prove that they did. The above so-called quoted don't prove anything. When Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2 he states that he is quoting from Joel. Matthew states that he quotes from Isaiah in Mat. 12, and so does Paul in 1Cor.14:21. They were not ashamed to state where they were quoting from, and their quotes were accurate. No where do we see: Thus saith Sirach, Baruch, etc. No quotes or allusions are in the NT from the apocrypha. There is no proof of it whatsoever.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
09-20-2006, 07:45 PM
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

Inquiring Mind
09-20-2006, 08:14 PM
As a paraphrase it is common.
All you have is three of four words.
"Lay up your treasure."
That is all. How can you even consider that a quote from the Apocrypha. It is ludicrous to take four words from the Apocrypha and claim that it is a quote. That is really stretching it.


Everyone--Jew and Gentile--was familiar with the Psalms, as inspired Scripture. Jesus quoted from that which was inspired Scripture. He never quoted from the Apocypha, and neither did any other writer of the NT. You have yet to prove that they did. The above so-called quoted don't prove anything. When Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2 he states that he is quoting from Joel. Matthew states that he quotes from Isaiah in Mat. 12, and so does Paul in 1Cor.14:21. They were not ashamed to state where they were quoting from, and their quotes were accurate. No where do we see: Thus saith Sirach, Baruch, etc. No quotes or allusions are in the NT from the apocrypha. There is no proof of it whatsoever.
DHK
Did a search on lay and treasure.
It only shows up once in the NT

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

So it is not common.

As for what was inspired at the time of Christ was walking the earth. The missing books that are not in your bible were considered inspired. They were part of the LXX when Jesus walked the earth.

And it's not blaphemous to say that Jesus quoted from them. It's only blaphemous in your mind.

Whether something is blaphemous or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Inquiring Mind
09-20-2006, 08:18 PM
And for your information.

The missing books were in the KJV for over 200 years before the American Bible Society offered to make low cost Bibles prvoided they could leave out the deuterocanicals.

They now have put them back in. Catholic dollars sit well in the bank just as Protestant dollars do.

orthodox
09-20-2006, 11:07 PM
I admit my mistake in references. It makes no difference. There is still a translational between Hebrew and Greek no matter which way you look at it, and there still is no proof that it is a quotation from the LXX. Isn't it odd that you should choose one of the shortest verses as your "proof text?"


I gave you reference to a web page that does an exhaustive list of quotations, listing those that both agree with the LXX in opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic text and those that agree with the Masoretic text in opposition to the LXX. The former exceed the latter on a ratio of about 30:6. The only reason I picked that one is that it is the FIRST one in the NT.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

You say it doesn't prove Mt quoted the Greek. Well if he didn't quote the Greek we have the extraordinary situation that he quoted a Hebrew text which differs substantially from the Masoretic text, and he did it with amazing luck to exactly match the LXX. Multiply that amazing 1000:1 shot by 30 instances and you have a 2^100 : 1 impossible scenario.

As for your quick look at a few apocrypha verses, sorry there is no short cuts here. If you want to know the truth about this for your own sake, as opposed to just scoring a few points here, you will have to do some personal research on all the suggested allusions and go through them all one by one to build up on overall picture. I'm not going to sit here and go through them one by one, you're going to have to decide as a matter of personal integrity whether you care about the truth. Then you're going to have to decide whether you are so proud that you decide for yourself the canon you want to follow, or whether you will submit to authority as the bible says, and follow the canon that the Church of the apostles formalised.

DHK
09-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Did a search on lay and treasure.
It only shows up once in the NT

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

So it is not common.
Did you search in the Hebrew language?
Did you search in the Greek language? How about the Aramaic?
Did you search the works of Homer, Greek poets, and others. Are you sure that your search was thorough? Why would you do a simple KJV search for a phrase commonly used in both Greek and Hebrew. That doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

As for what was inspired at the time of Christ was walking the earth. The missing books that are not in your bible were considered inspired. They were part of the LXX when Jesus walked the earth.
I find your "If the KJV is good enough for Paul" approach to Scripture quite humorous. You really believe in that philosophy don't you, just like a KJVO--the type that believes that the KJV is more inspired and even corrects the Greek and the Hebrew. This is your philosophy and what you are demonstrating on this board. How?
All the Jews knew and accepted that the Hebrew MT was the inspired OT. It and it only was the Word of God or at least a copy of the preserved Word of God. Inspiration in and of itself extends only to the original manuscripts. "Holy men of old spoke as they were moved of the Holy Spirit."
Those holy men of old were not the translators of the Septuagint, nor were they the translators of the KJV or Jerome or Luther or of any other translator. They were Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. and by extension the Apostles. Those holy men specifically refer to the authors of the 39 books of the Old Testament, who wrote them all in Hebrew.
That canon was completed between 450 and 400 B.C. The Jews would not accept any book written after that date as inspired. All the books of the Apocrypha werer written after 150 B.C. (150 B.C. -30 A.D.)
They never accepted any book that was written in any other language except for Hebrew. The apocryphal books were all written in Greek.

It is impossible to have any such thing as an apocryphal book in the Old Testament, given the above facts--an absolute impossibility. Again, let me remind you--when speaking of the Bible both we today, and the Jews of yester years (as well as Jesus) considered only the original manuscripts inspired. Inspiration only extends to the original manuscripts.

So 150 years or more, the Septuagint comes, a translation made by about 70 men who translate the Hebrew MT into Greek. Perhaps it takes some time and may be completed in about 100 years (150 B.C.) During that period of time and the time leading up to Christ other copies of the LXX are made. Even after Christ copies continue to be made. In the later editions of the LXX, after the birth of Christ especially, apocryphal books are found to be inserted that was never found in the original Septuagint. The Jews would never have the apocrypha in their OT. They weren't even in existence when the work of the LXX started, nor when it finished. How could the original LXX possibly could have contained the apocrypha. It didn't.

Secondly, when Jesus and the apostles (if they did) quoted from the Septuagint, they would have been perfectly aware that they were not quoting inspired Scripture. They would have been quoting from a translation, just as I quote from the KJV, or perhaps a French translation, or any other translation. None of them are inspired. The LXX is only a translation. It is not inspired. The only parts of it that are inspired are those that became inspired when they were written down as Scripture in the NT. It didn't mean that the whole book was inspired.

Examples:
Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean that the entire book is inspired, only the verse that Jude quotes.
Paul quotes in Titus, a Cretian philosophers. Are all the philosophers of Crete inspired? I don't think so.
In the book of Acts Paul quotes a Grecian pagan poet. Is he also inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and all of his works as well?
Only those things that made their way, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, into the pages of Scripture are inspired. The LXX is a translation, not inspired.

Concerning the Apocrypha, when they did make their way into certain editions of the Septuagint often it was not because they were inspired but because of their value in reference material. The same is true today. Heretics like Origen tried to keep them within the canon itself, but then he was a heretic even by Catholic standards.

There were some editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha. But those 14 books were grouped together and inserted between the two testaments. They were not interspersed throughout the Old Testament like the Catholics do. There were no extra chapters added to Daniel for example. They were put there because the KJV translators knew that they were not the Word of God, and that they were for reference only.

I have a study Bible. Within its pages I have a Bible dictionary, a concordance, maps, and other information. If I had wanted a Bible with the apocrypha in it I could have ordered one with it as well, but I didn't want it. The fact is that the dictionary and the concordance are not part of the Bible, and neither is the apocrypha. They are all extras, helps, reference material--the apocrypha included. The people of King James time understood this; can you?
The apocrypha is not, never was part of the canon of Scripture. There has been no evidence given that it ever was.
Even the full quotation from Josephus states that any addition to the MT was wrong. He didn't accept the apocryphal books.
DHK

DHK
09-21-2006, 12:51 AM
I gave you reference to a web page that does an exhaustive list of quotations, listing those that both agree with the LXX in opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic text and those that agree with the Masoretic text in opposition to the LXX. The former exceed the latter on a ratio of about 30:6. The only reason I picked that one is that it is the FIRST one in the NT.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

You say it doesn't prove Mt quoted the Greek.
It doesn't.
Well if he didn't quote the Greek we have the extraordinary situation that he quoted a Hebrew text which differs substantially from the Masoretic text, and he did it with amazing luck to exactly match the LXX. Multiply that amazing 1000:1 shot by 30 instances and you have a 2^100 : 1 impossible scenario.

As for your quick look at a few apocrypha verses, sorry there is no short cuts here.
I'll give you a short cut with one quick glance at your phony site.
It didn't take much looking.

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). (NT/LXX Mat.1:23)

Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(Isa.7:14 MT)
From the MT, the KJV was translated and accurately translated Isaiah 7:14 as "a virgin shall conceive, not a young woman shall conceive. Even your own informatioin which is posted in your link is suspect. Why should I believe it?
DHK

orthodox
09-21-2006, 03:07 AM
All the Jews knew and accepted that the Hebrew MT was the inspired OT.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
It and it only was the Word of God or at least a copy of the preserved Word of God.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
Inspiration in and of itself extends only to the original manuscripts. "Holy men of old spoke as they were moved of the Holy Spirit."
Those holy men of old were not the translators of the Septuagint, nor were they the translators of the KJV or Jerome or Luther or of any other translator.

Firstly, assuming what you have yet to prove.

Secondly, the LXX was translated from a different Hebrew text to the MT, which is often right where the MT is wrong. That's why even modern bibles that have been substantially been translated from the MT still have footnotes saying "From the Septuagint".



They were Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. and by extension the Apostles. Those holy men specifically refer to the authors of the 39 books of the Old Testament, who wrote them all in Hebrew.


Pure fabrication, there is no mention of 39 books.



That canon was completed between 450 and 400 B.C.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
The Jews would not accept any book written after that date as inspired.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
All the books of the Apocrypha werer written after 150 B.C. (150 B.C. -30 A.D.)
They never accepted any book that was written in any other language except for Hebrew. The apocryphal books were all written in Greek.
Firstly, assuming what you have yet to prove.

Secondly, not all the apocrypha is written in Greek. I thought you claimed to know a lot about this subject?


It is impossible to have any such thing as an apocryphal book in the Old Testament, given the above facts--an absolute impossibility.
No facts presented, just assuming what you have yet to prove.
Again, let me remind you--when speaking of the Bible both we today, and the Jews of yester years (as well as Jesus) considered only the original manuscripts inspired. Inspiration only extends to the original manuscripts.

Assuming what you have yet to prove.
So 150 years or more, the Septuagint comes, a translation made by about 70 men who translate the Hebrew MT into Greek. Perhaps it takes some time and may be completed in about 100 years (150 B.C.) During that period of time and the time leading up to Christ other copies of the LXX are made. Even after Christ copies continue to be made. In the later editions of the LXX, after the birth of Christ especially, apocryphal books are found to be inserted that was never found in the original Septuagint.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
The Jews would never have the apocrypha in their OT.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
They weren't even in existence when the work of the LXX started, nor when it finished.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
How could the original LXX possibly could have contained the apocrypha. It didn't.

Secondly, when Jesus and the apostles (if they did) quoted from the Septuagint, they would have been perfectly aware that they were not quoting inspired Scripture. They would have been quoting from a translation, just as I quote from the KJV, or perhaps a French translation, or any other translation.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
None of them are inspired. The LXX is only a translation. It is not inspired. The only parts of it that are inspired are those that became inspired when they were written down as Scripture in the NT. It didn't mean that the whole book was inspired.
Became inspired? How can a text not be inspired, and then suddenly become inspired with no changes?

[quote]In the book of Acts Paul quotes a Grecian pagan poet. Is he also inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and all of his works as well?


There's a big difference in that Greek poets are not scripture, whereas the LXX is scripture. e.g. Through Romans 9-11 Paul several times says "as the scripture says" going on to quote the LXX. And some of these quotes in Ro 9-11 don't match the Masoretic.

The apostles say the LXX is scripture, that's all I need to know.

Concerning the Apocrypha, when they did make their way into certain editions of the Septuagint often it was not because they were inspired but because of their value in reference material.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.
The same is true today. Heretics like Origen tried to keep them within the canon itself,
Assuming what you have yet to prove.

but then he was a heretic even by Catholic standards
Assuming what you have yet to prove..

There were some editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha. But those 14 books were grouped together and inserted between the two testaments. They were not interspersed throughout the Old Testament like the Catholics do.

Which proves nothing.
The people of King James time understood this;
Assuming what you have yet to prove..
The apocrypha is not, never was part of the canon of Scripture.
Assuming what you have yet to prove..
There has been no evidence given that it ever was.
Assuming what you have yet to prove.[quote].

orthodox
09-21-2006, 03:11 AM
It doesn't.

I'll give you a short cut with one quick glance at your phony site.
It didn't take much looking.


[COLOR=#3333ff]From the MT, the KJV was translated and accurately translated Isaiah 7:14 as "a virgin shall conceive, not a young woman shall conceive. Even your own informatioin which is posted in your link is suspect. Why should I believe it?
DHK

The KJV translates it that way because Matthew translates it that way, and he translates it that way because the LXX does!

But that's not the best example, there's 29 others for you to consider that are much clearer. But I'll bet there is no response because you don't want to find the truth, only to argue facts that aren't disputed even by protestant scholars.

DHK
09-21-2006, 05:05 AM
Assuming what you have yet to prove.Assuming what you have yet to prove. This tiresome and oft repeated rant of yours only shows your ignorance of Bibliology and Bible history. You need an education in the history of the Bible, and its canonicity.
DHK

orthodox
09-21-2006, 07:40 AM
This tiresome and oft repeated rant of yours only shows your ignorance of Bibliology and Bible history. You need an education in the history of the Bible, and its canonicity.


If I need an education, apparently you're not the one to give it to me. I've cited famous scholars about what languages were spoken in Palestine. I've cited exhaustive collations of NT quotations of the LXX that differ from the Masoretic text. I've educated you that the LXX you own is Brenton's collation and translation, and how to look it up. I proved to you that the 22 book canon doesn't mean the protestant canon. You've demonstrated you don't understand Greek. You've demonstated you either havn't read, or havn't read carefully the deutero-canon, since you thought the Prologue to Sirach was written by Sirach.

What have you come up with? What facts have you documented? Not a thing as far as I can see. All you do is come here making wild and vast claims, none of which you can document. Tell us why you come here and waste everybody's time.

Eliyahu
09-21-2006, 08:55 AM
THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Hebrew arrangement

Torah
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Nebi-im (prophets)
Joshua
Judges (and Ruth)
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah (and (Lamen.)
Ezekiel
The Twelve

Kethub-im (psalms or writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth (if not with Judges)
Lamentations (if not with Jer.)
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
(22-24)


This is the order of the books of the Hebrew Bible I also have a copy of the Septuagint. It was published in 1879 by Samuel Bagster and Sons in London. It does not contain the Apocrypha, but in its preface gives good information of the history of the Septuagint, why its copy is reliable, and how many others came to be corrupted.
DHK

Excellent !


I understand that Apocrypha have been rejected by the True Believers due to the following reasons.

1) None of the writers claimed that they received the divine commandment from God that they should write such writings and that they should be read as Bible.
This is the most important criteria. For example, Isaiah or Jeremiah mentioned the Jehovah said, or God showed up, and so on.
But none of the Apocrypha writers mentioned such divine order.

2) They were not written in the language of then God's people, Hebrew.
Mostly they were written in Greek which was spoken by Pork meat eating, Idol worshipping people, full of myths and paganism.

3) None of them were quoted by Jesus ( Someone claimed that Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:9 is from Sirach, which is nonsense)

4) None of them were quoted by Disciples

5) Apocrypha teach immoral things like suicide, assassination, prayer to the dead ( so that they can pray to the dead saints and dead woman Mary)

6) They are not consistant between the Apocrypha, i.e. the place of the death of Antiocus is mentioned in 3 different places.

When Josephus mentioned about the Bible, he didn't count these Apocrypha.

Jesus read Hebrew Bible ( Mt 24:35, 5:18, Luke 24:44), Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14) Paul spoke to Jewish Crowd in Hebrew (Acts 21:40- 22:2)

All the quotations in NT are different from LXX at least in one or two words in the quotations even though they may look similar to Septuagint.
This issue was dealt with on the other thread- Bible Translations and Versions. I can agree that there could exist a certain Hebrew Vorlage which would have been the basis for LXX. The people who pushes Apocrypha often rely on the LXX, which is not authentic.

orthodox
09-21-2006, 10:18 AM
I understand that Apocrypha have been rejected by the True Believers due to the following reasons.


What is a True Believer? Someone who disbelieves part of the bible? How strange.


1) None of the writers claimed that they received the divine commandment from God that they should write such writings and that they should be read as Bible.
This is the most important criteria. For example, Isaiah or Jeremiah mentioned the Jehovah said, or God showed up, and so on.
But none of the Apocrypha writers mentioned such divine order.


Most books of the bible make no such claim. By that criteria you only have a few books left.


2) They were not written in the language of then God's people, Hebrew.
Mostly they were written in Greek which was spoken by Pork meat eating, Idol worshipping people, full of myths and paganism.


Firstly, you have no proof of this. Secondly, whether it was written in Greek or not, it still remains a work of the Jews. No scholar would dispute it. Thirdly, not even all the protestant OT canon is written in classical Hebrew. Some is written in Aramaic.


3) None of them were quoted by Jesus ( Someone claimed that Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:9 is from Sirach, which is nonsense)

4) None of them were quoted by Disciples


Really. Why won't somebody tell me who is referred to in Heb 11:35 "But others were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life."

It's a very clear reference to the events of 2 Macabees 7. There is no other event in Jewish history that fits.

2 Maccabees 7:13-14 After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. When he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"



5) Apocrypha teach immoral things like suicide, assassination, prayer to the dead ( so that they can pray to the dead saints and dead woman Mary)


The protestant canon teaches genocide.



6) They are not consistant between the Apocrypha, i.e. the place of the death of Antiocus is mentioned in 3 different places.


There were 4 kings who took the name Antiochus. Antiohus I (280-261 BC), Antiohus II (261-246 BC), Antiohus III (222-187 BC), Antiohus IV (175-164 BC).

It's amazing how protestants will grab cheap shots of random web sites to win an argument, but won't do their own investigations to defend the Word of God instead of attacking it.



When Josephus mentioned about the Bible, he didn't count these Apocrypha.


Firstly, Josephus never says what books are in the bible. Secondly, he is a Jew writing well after the time of Christ who rejects the entire NT canon. Who cares what he says?


Jesus read Hebrew Bible ( Mt 24:35, 5:18, Luke 24:44), Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14) Paul spoke to Jewish Crowd in Hebrew (Acts 21:40- 22:2)


Not classical Hebrew which I have already documented in this thread. Classical Hebrew was a dead language well before Christ. This was the more modern Hebrew tongue otherwise known as Aramaic.

And who cares if Paul occasionally spoke a Hebrew tongue? Talk about an irrelevant distraction to the real issue.


All the quotations in NT are different from LXX at least in one or two words in the quotations even though they may look similar to Septuagint.


Pffft. So what if they were? (which BTW you havn't documented). The point is, the quotes often agree with the LXX in meaning, and disagree with the MT.

Darron Steele
09-21-2006, 11:03 AM
DHK, Orthodox, Inquiring Mind.

I no longer think facts are the issue of this thread. It looks like a lot of this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/graemlins/newgraemlins/tonofbricks.gif
:tonofbricks:

Five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls had a Hebrew text of the form that would underlie the Septuagint, and sixty percent was proto-Masoretic (Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 172). We also have surviving fragments of the Septuagint itself from the last two centuries B.C.E. (same book, pages 212-3).

Sometimes the New Testament authors did quote the Septuagint, and sometimes they did their own translation of the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, and sometimes they may have done their own translation of the Septuagint source Hebrew text. It would have been their choice, and their choice may have been for a specific point, or for convenience. I have dozens of Bible translations in multiple languages; sometimes I will use one to make a specific point, but sometimes I will just grab whichever one is easiest to grab at the moment or that I just felt like using. If the standards of Bible citation were as low now as they were in ancient times, I would also do straight translations from Spanish and Portuguese translations -- which I do today by quoting the original Spanish or Portuguese and then translating.

Further, whatever canon the New Testament period Palestinian Jews had, it was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. This means that the Bible of Jesus Christ was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament -- and since Jesus Christ is God, this was God's Old Testament. It would also have been the Old Testament of James, as well as of Peter and the rest of the 12 main disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry -- and the initial 11 apostles afterward, and the first churches because they started in Palestine.

The New Testament authors' citations of the Septuagint do NOT mean that they accepted the additional books. I have a 1611 KJV on my bookshelf, but in quoting it, it does not at all mean that I accept those additional books: it means that I find the 1611 KJV translated text of the Bible helpful. Ditto for when I use the Douay-Rheims Version translation of the Latin Vulgate translation: I do not accept the interspersed additional books, but I sometimes find the biblical text useful. Likewise, use of the Septuagint for Bible text quotations does NOT mean endorsement of the added material.

In Palestine, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were all regular languages (Open Bible). There were times when Jesus apparently spoke Greek because of the word plays used that are recorded in the Gospels that could only possibly be done in Greek. It is possible to know more than one language, and I have known multi-lingual people who switch languages in mid-conversation when they have decided thoughts are better expressed in their other language.

In Orthodoxy, what the Orthodox believe about certain things is dictated. There is a lot less freedom for independent thought. The Orthodox here are NOT going to reject the church's position on the added pre-New Testamant books because they are convinced that the church has the authority to tell them what to believe. To them the church has more authority than the Bible, and many Orthodox apologists are willing to get non-Orthodox Bible-believers to question Bible authority in order to advance church authority. Because of that, the Orthodox are not going to be swayed on the issue of the added books. The church tells them what to think on some things, and they research and reflect on the best reasons to do so. To question the church is seen as an act of insolence. It would actually be easier to sway a Baptist on the issue of the added books because s/he has more room for independent thought on individual issues -- and that is not happening on this one, is it?

I participate on another discussion board. The expectation there is that once it is apparent that one is not going to convince the other, it is time for each party to just drop it. If at least one of us does not, the moderator puts an end to it. I have seen anti-Semitic comments, and I have seen personal insults of education. Would you really want an unbeliever considering Christianity to view what this argument has turned into? Would you want that unbeliever to suspect that Christians normally talk to each other this way? Why not just drop it, or announce that you are leaving the conversation.

DHK
09-21-2006, 02:34 PM
If I need an education, apparently you're not the one to give it to me. I've cited famous scholars about what languages were spoken in Palestine
I am well aware of the languages spoken there. I don't think that was any bone of contention anyway. I have basically ignored your so-called scholars. I don't take away from their scholarship, but only from their point of view as scholars. You choose those scholars which are liberal, which have a propensity for discrediting the Bible and the supernatural. Why should I trust in them?
I've cited exhaustive collations of NT quotations of the LXX that differ from the Masoretic text.
And so you have. The LXX isn't what it used to be. It has been corrupted over the ages, and it wasn't a good translation to begin with. Besides that it was only a translation. But all of that doesn't matter. Why are you hung up on a translation. What if they did? What difference what it make? Paul quoted from a Cretian philosopher and a Greek poet. God chose what portions of what books (whatever they may have been) and when they were written in the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they became inspired, not before that time.
I've educated you that the LXX you own is Brenton's collation and translation, and how to look it up. I proved to you that the 22 book canon doesn't mean the protestant canon.
You came to the conclusion that the LXX that I have is the same as yours. That makes no difference to me. You did not show me how to look up Roman Numerals . I don't know your age, but there is a good chance that I knew how to do that before you were born. I simply made an honest mistake.
You still seem to be uninformed or uneducated about the Hebrew Canon. The western divisions of having 39 books in the Old Testament came much later in history. I posted how there were only 22 books in the OT. Why don't you believe me. I stated what they were and what their divisions were. If you want Scriptural back up look what Jesus Himself says:

Luke 24:44 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 (writings or poetical books), concerning me.
--These are the three divisions of the OT, not the five divisions that the Western Church has inserted in for their own convenience. You Bible history is surely lacking.
You've demonstrated you don't understand Greek. You've demonstated you either havn't read, or havn't read carefully the deutero-canon, since you thought the Prologue to Sirach was written by Sirach.
I never said anything about the authorship of the prologue of Sirach. I don't bother to try and refute everything that you say. I ignore most of it. The fact that the prologue states that Book of Sirach is not at the level of the LXX holds a lot of weight, that you don't accept. But you shut your eyes to the evidence given. How have you demonstrated I don't understand Greek. Again, I ignored your post.
What have you come up with? What facts have you documented? Not a thing as far as I can see. All you do is come here making wild and vast claims, none of which you can document. Tell us why you come here and waste everybody's time.
How presumptuous can a person be. You are Orthodox, not Baptist. This is a Baptist Board of which I am a moderator, and have been a member since the year 2,000. Now tell me: Who is the guest? The question is: Why do you come here and waste everybody's time on a BAPTIST board??[ A bit arrogant aren't you?
DHK

Inquiring Mind
09-21-2006, 03:30 PM
This is a Baptist Board of which I am a moderator, and have been a member since the year 2,000. Now tell me: Who is the guest? There is a lot sin there in that comment. I see arrogance. I see pride.

Inquiring Mind
09-21-2006, 03:41 PM
You still seem to be uninformed or uneducated about the Hebrew Canon.The Hebrew Canon was determined in 90 AD nearly 60 years after the death of Christ at a JEWISH COUNCIL in Jamnia not a CHRISTIAN COUNCIL

This same council that made theses decrees:

1. Jesus is not the promised Messiah.
2. Christians are no longer allowed in the synogogues.
3. The declaration of distinction between Jews and Christians (Jews are God's people and Christians are Heretics )
4. They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included as the Inspired Word of God.
----- 1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
----- 2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
----- 3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
----- 4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C

IN LAYMAN'S TERMS: THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS NOT ONE INSPIRED BOOK.

5. They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

I reject the 90 AD Council of Jamnia and all of it's decrees.

Inquiring Mind
09-21-2006, 03:47 PM
Luke 24:44 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 (writings or poetical books), concerning me.
--These are the three divisions of the OT, not the five divisions that the Western Church has inserted in for their own convenience. You Bible history is surely lacking.

My KJV has 5 divisions:

The Law
The Histories
The Poetics
The Major Prophets
The Minor Prophets

assuming?

DHK
09-21-2006, 03:55 PM
My KJV has 5 divisions:

The Law
The Histories
The Poetics
The Major Prophets
The Minor Prophets

assuming?
Yes, you are absolutely right! All of our English Bibles do. But the Apostle Paul did not use the KJV. He used the MT, a Hebrew OT, which has only 22 books divided into three divisions--the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Psalms), as Christ himself delineates. (Luke 24:44)
DHK

DHK
09-21-2006, 04:00 PM
The Hebrew Canon was determined in 90 AD nearly 60 years after the death of Christ at a JEWISH COUNCIL in Jamnia not a CHRISTIAN COUNCIL

This same council that made theses decrees:

1. Jesus is not the promised Messiah.
2. Christians are no longer allowed in the synogogues.
3. The declaration of distinction between Jews and Christians (Jews are God's people and Christians are Heretics )
4. They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included as the Inspired Word of God.
----- 1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
----- 2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
----- 3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
----- 4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C

IN LAYMAN'S TERMS: THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS NOT ONE INSPIRED BOOK.

5. They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

I reject the 90 AD Council of Jamnia and all of it's decrees.
They were Jews. The Jews gave us the Old Testament Scripture.
The Jews gave us Christ. He was a Jew. Do you also reject Him?

There were some other criteria that they went by. But basically that is correct. The council didn't determine anything; it only reaffirmed what was already known among the Jews and Bible believing Christians everywhere up until that time. Heretics trying to destroy the Bible believed differently.
DHK

DHK
09-21-2006, 04:08 PM
There is a lot sin there in that comment. I see arrogance. I see pride.
Does the truth hurt IQ?
The same applies to you.
The BB, out of grace, opened a section of their private board to members of other religions. They did not have to do this. There have been some that have misused this privilege and have been banned as a result. There are some that cannot post here because of extreme heretical beliefs. Posting here is a privilege not a right. Your denomination is Congregational holiness according to your profile. This is a Baptist Board. We expect you to keep the rules of which you agreed to when you registered. You, as well as Orthodox, are relatively new here. You are guests at a Baptist board. Please remember that.

BTW, in the future it may be good for a poster to remember that reprimanding a moderator, in the way the Orthodox did is against the rules that he agreed to. If he has come here to debate, then let him debate. Insults are not tolerated.
DHK

orthodox
09-21-2006, 09:42 PM
Further, whatever canon the New Testament period Palestinian Jews had, it was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament.


Proof?


The New Testament authors' citations of the Septuagint do NOT mean that they accepted the additional books.


That's true in theory, but when there are dozens if not hundreds of allusions, you have to start being reasonable about your assumptions.


In Orthodoxy, what the Orthodox believe about certain things is dictated. There is a lot less freedom for independent thought. The Orthodox here are NOT going to reject the church's position on the added pre-New Testamant books because they are convinced that the church has the authority to tell them what to believe. To them the church has more authority than the Bible, and many Orthodox apologists are willing to get non-Orthodox Bible-believers to question Bible authority in order to advance church authority.


Really. I'd like to see what happens if someone started attending your church and disputing the validity of some of the books of the bible. Then we'd see whether there is really any difference between us with authority and freedom.

orthodox
09-21-2006, 10:20 PM
I am well aware of the languages spoken there. I don't think that was any bone of contention anyway.


You could have fooled me.


I have basically ignored your so-called scholars. I don't take away from their scholarship, but only from their point of view as scholars. You choose those scholars which are liberal, which have a propensity for discrediting the Bible and the supernatural. Why should I trust in them?


Which is it? Either there is no contention, or else you don't trust them on this issue. You can't have it both ways.

And if you don't like the scholars I quote, then quote your own. You don't quote your own because no scholar of any persuasion agrees with you. And if you don't like any scholars, cite primary source material. As it is, you don't cite anything but your opinion, that is the problem.


And so you have. The LXX isn't what it used to be. It has been corrupted over the ages,


So has the Masoretic text. Your point is?


and it wasn't a good translation to begin with. Besides that it was only a translation. But all of that doesn't matter. Why are you hung up on a translation.


I am hung up on a translation:

a) Because it is the only complete surviving witness to a form of the text that no longer exists.

b) It is the form of the text used by the apostles most of the time.

c) It can on many occasions correct the Masoretic text, as you will see in any modern translation's footnotes.


You came to the conclusion that the LXX that I have is the same as yours. That makes no difference to me. You did not show me how to look up Roman Numerals . I don't know your age, but there is a good chance that I knew how to do that before you were born. I simply made an honest mistake.


The problem is not the honest mistake, the problem is your forging on with the mistake in the face of overwhelming evidence. If I looked up a translation differing significantly from other translations, my first assumption would be that I got it wrong and investigate. If I still missed my error and somebody else told me I was wrong too, I'd pretty much know I was the one in the wrong and go find out where. The fact you weren't even open to investigating your own mistake in the face of such overwhelming evidence says a lot about your attitude to the whole situation.



You still seem to be uninformed or uneducated about the Hebrew Canon. The western divisions of having 39 books in the Old Testament came much later in history. I posted how there were only 22 books in the OT. Why don't you believe me. I stated what they were and what their divisions were. If you want Scriptural back up look what Jesus Himself says:


The issue is not the 22 books, the issue is what is contained in the 22 books, because as I have already documented, and which you havn't responded to, many proponents of the 22 books explicitely INCLUDED the apocrpypha.


Luke 24:44 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 (writings or poetical books), concerning me.
--These are the three divisions of the OT, not the five divisions that the Western Church has inserted in for their own convenience. You Bible history is surely lacking.


More insults and ad hominem, and yet we havn't even discussed major divisions, so how I can be lacking I don't know.

The issue is not the divisions in the bible, the issue is what is contained in those divisions. You can say there is 3 or 5 or 22 but it still won't say if the apocrypha is included or not.


I never said anything about the authorship of the prologue of Sirach.


Yes you did, and I'll quote you below from message #76 where you say Sirach wrote it:


In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament


It would be nice if you owned up to your errors straight away rather than having to go though a long process of getting you to admit them.


I don't bother to try and refute everything that you say. I ignore most of it.


You don't bother to refute any of it.


The fact that the prologue states that Book of Sirach is not at the level of the LXX holds a lot of weight, that you don't accept.


But it doesn't say that! All it says is that the Greek translator expresses his humility in the difficulties in translating into Greek. And again, it carries no weight anyway because it is just the translator's note, about as significant as the translator's preface to the KJV as being authoritative.


But you shut your eyes to the evidence given.


I shut my eyes to nothing because you havn't even bothered citing the prologue and giving your analysis. At the moment we are still at the stage of trying to get you to admit you erred as to the authorship of the prologue.


How presumptuous can a person be. You are Orthodox, not Baptist. This is a Baptist Board of which I am a moderator, and have been a member since the year 2,000. Now tell me: Who is the guest? The question is: Why do you come here and waste everybody's time on a BAPTIST board??[ A bit arrogant aren't you?


I'm not forcing you to interact with Christians of other denominations. But if you choose to dispute with us, no matter what the venue, whether you are moderator or not, you ought to have the respect to be able to back up what you say, otherwise why waste your time and ours?

Taufgesinnter
09-21-2006, 11:32 PM
I thought this was a forum open to all Christians, not just Baptists. There are others on this site that are closed to non-Baptists, unfortunately, such as the one on Bible Translation/Versions. But isn't this the Other Christian Denominations board? :confused:

Eliyahu
09-21-2006, 11:35 PM
What is a True Believer? Someone who disbelieves part of the bible? How strange.


Roman Catholic, the Idol Worshippers and Goddess worshippers were not the true believers and the people who refused such idolatry, living faithful to the commandments of God were the true believers. They refused the Apocrypha.




Most books of the bible make no such claim. By that criteria you only have a few books left.

It is not difficult to identify the claim of the authors for most of the books in Bible.
For example, Pentateuch won't have any problem even if we check them with such criteria, as Moses wrote them according to the commandments from God.
Do you doubt about Samuel ? about Isaiah ? about 12 prophets?
Doesn't Job include the oracle from God ?
There could some argument against Esther or Ruth etc, but Ruth can easily be understood as the teaching on messianic genealogy.
If you study and check further, only books which can be argued may be Esther and Song of Solomon where there have been arguments on their verasity or authenticity.



Firstly, you have no proof of this. Secondly, whether it was written in Greek or not, it still remains a work of the Jews. No scholar would dispute it. Thirdly, not even all the protestant OT canon is written in classical Hebrew. Some is written in Aramaic.

If anyone expects God would tell him or her any commandments in the language which cannot be understood by the listeners, he or she may be insane.
Pagan gods may be doing so, as Roman Catholic contains lots of paganism.

Some Parts of Nehemiah/Ezra and Daniel contain Aramaic, but the whole contexts of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah were written in Hebrew.
Those Aramaic portion was the quotations of what they wrote to the Aramaic King or Chaldean Kings. If Israelites of today wrote a letter to Mr. G Bush, they would have written in English. If anyone record the story about it, they would quote the exact wordings in English.
Likewise only the small portion was quoted in the original language of the letters. Moreover, between Aramaic and Hebrew there are lots of similarity and in the ancient times the most of Israelites could understand Aramaic.
The difference might have been like the one between Hollywood English and Aussie English.
But in case of Septuagint, the Greek language was far different from Hebrew.



Really. Why won't somebody tell me who is referred to in Heb 11:35 "But others were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life."

It's a very clear reference to the events of 2 Macabees 7. There is no other event in Jewish history that fits.

2 Maccabees 7:13-14 After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. When he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"

Nope! it is not referring to Maccabees, but it was quite common to the martyrs and therefore it is indicating Rev 20:5 ( the rest of the people would not revive, while some chosen people enjoy the better resurrection)
So, such claim that Maccabees were quoted cannot be proven by it.



The protestant canon teaches genocide.

Nope ! Roman Catholic taught the Genocide !
The Devout Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler, Devout Roman Catholic Himmler, Devout Catholic Goebbels, Mussolini, Franco the dictator of Spain, etc were all Roman catholic.

Read this:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html

Read this:


http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


What about the Crusade which killed the Christians in Alps and Jews ?

Does Bible teach Roman Catholic that they should kill the people if they are found heretic ?

Roman Catholic may be eager to find the clues to support such Genocide, from Apocrypha.


There were 4 kings who took the name Antiochus. Antiohus I (280-261 BC), Antiohus II (261-246 BC), Antiohus III (222-187 BC), Antiohus IV (175-164 BC).

It's amazing how protestants will grab cheap shots of random web sites to win an argument, but won't do their own investigations to defend the Word of God instead of attacking it.

it is ridiculous that RC try to find the clues from Apocrypha to pray to the dead woman, dead people. Could you say where was Antiocus Ephipanes dead ?




Firstly, Josephus never says what books are in the bible. Secondly, he is a Jew writing well after the time of Christ who rejects the entire NT canon. Who cares what he says?

Josephus mentioned 22 books in the Bible,
5 books of Torah, 13 history books, 4 writings which include Psalm, which indicates all the OT bibles as the Protestants have today.
( Ref : The Dead Sea Scrolls Today by James C. Vanderkam, p 148)

You can find No Apocrypha mentioned in Josephus books.





Not classical Hebrew which I have already documented in this thread. Classical Hebrew was a dead language well before Christ. This was the more modern Hebrew tongue otherwise known as Aramaic.

And who cares if Paul occasionally spoke a Hebrew tongue? Talk about an irrelevant distraction to the real issue.

If Paul delievered the address in Hebrew to the Jews as we read in Acts 21:40 and 22:2, then how much more could we believe that the Israelites at that time used the Hebrew language in their RELIGIOUS life?
Hebrew was not dead ! it was living language as we remember the title on the Cross was written in Hebrew so that the passers-by could read in Hebrew!



Pffft. So what if they were? (which BTW you havn't documented). The point is, the quotes often agree with the LXX in meaning, and disagree with the MT.

Have you ever read Bible in Greek and in Hebrew ?
I have read NT in Greek many times and some good portion of OT in Hebrew. I have much amount of comparison between NT Quote and LXX and confirmed that there are too many differences for the people to believe that the NT writers quoted LXX.
There could be Pre-existing Hebrew OT which was used as the basis for the Septuagint, but such Hebrew OT do not exist today.
Moreover Dead Sea Scrolls showed the accuracy of Masoretic Texts when the scholars compared on Isaiah.

There is no jot and tittle in Greek which was mentioned by Jesus in Mt 5:18, and the order of Septuagint is far different from Masoretic Text as MT 24:35 implies. Jesus mentioned the first martyr of OT (Abel) and the last martyr of OT ( Zechariah) according to the order of Masoretic Texts, not in the order of Septuagint. Luke 24:44 proves Jesus mention the composition of the bible according to MT, not to Septuagint which include Apocrypha.

DHK
09-22-2006, 12:05 AM
Yes you did, and I'll quote you below from message #76 where you say Sirach wrote it:

The Prologue of Sirach (in part)
Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Euergetes was king, and continuing there some time, I found a book of no small learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3914423

Eliyahu
09-22-2006, 12:15 AM
The Reason why Roman Catholic vehemently advocate the Apocrypha is because AP can provide the ground for their paganism.
Also, RC defend LXX because LXX comes with Apocrypha.
But the fact is the no one can prove that NT used the Greek Septuagint.

My survey shows the differences between NT and LXX, in almost every verses where NT quoted OT.

1.Hebrews 10:5 - Psalm 40:6
NT
Ευδοκησας (delight in, pleasure Εζητησας (seek, pursue) )
LXX
Εζητησας (seek, pursue)

MT
Chaphatsta(pleased to do, delight in)


We should distinguish 2 problems here:

1) a body thou has prepared for me.
or
Mine ear hast thou opened

Literally, KJV differs between OT and NT.

2) thou didn't require(seek or pursue), or

thou didn't desire

εζητησασ may have the meaning of desire too, but apparently different word, different spelling, and if NT quoted LXX, why didn't NT have the exact spelling of it?

If anyone can be generous about item 2), then he or she should tolerate 1) as well, because Jews interpret this way:

Ears are part of the body organ and the channel for receiving divine instructions and when the Bible said God dug Ears for me, it can be translated as God prepared a body for me too, saying the question " how can we translate dig Ears for me into Greek without causing misunderstanding?"

So, in this aspect, if we apply the same rule, then KJV has no problem without LXX.

Otherwise, if we can imagine that there might be another Hebrew OT texts, it might be easier to resolve the discrepancies as we often hear that there were 3 types of Hebrew OT, Babylonian, Egyptian, Palestinian etc.

Still I take Heb 10:5 as a good example that NT didn't quote LXX as we notice the difference (ευδοκησασ / εζητησασ)




2. Matt 1:23 ( Isaiah 7:14)

NT:
Behold, a virgin..They shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX
His name shall be called

MT
You(femnine you=the virgin) shall call his name
( KJV translated " she shall call) but the accurate wording is thou ( the virgin) shall call his name. This is quite delicate difference.

3. Luke 4:19 ( Isaiah 61:2)

NT
Κηρυξαι ;To preach the acceptable
LXX
Καλεσαι ;(call)
MT
KRA ( proclaim)

In this case, NT and MT used the same wording for both verse 18 preach and verse 19 preach while LXX use different words ( kerusso and kalesai)

4. Acts 8:32-33 Isaiah 53:7-8

NT
Και ως αμνος εναντιον του κειραντος αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα….. αυτου
LXX
Και ως αμνος εμπρσθεν του κειραντος (- )αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα ( -)

Inthisshortsentence, 3 spotsaredifferent. NT is closer to MT.



5 Isaiah 61:1-2 Luke 4:18

DSS agrees with MT




6. Psalm 8:5 in Heb 2:7
Someone claim that MT stated God instead of angels. Hebrew MT states elohim and KJV translated it as angels. There is no discrepancy between NT and MT. In the context, Hebrew MT sound a little more toward to God, but it is not that much.

7. Jeremiah 31:32

But we have to be careful between Hebrew MT and English MT.

NT-LXX
for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord"

MT-
my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.

1) Here we notice the variance among the texts:
Some text says : ga-al-ti which means desecrated.
Other text says : Bahalti which means I hated
Ben Chayyim text says : ba-al-ti which means " lord over, rule over, be husband to, own, possess.
There is a difference only one spelling between the text.
2) Enlgish translation of MT expanded the difference more as we can see above.

3) However, in this sentence again we can clearly confirm that NT didn't quote LXX !!!! See the difference below:

NT LXX
εποιησα διεθεμην
επιλαβομην επελαβομην
μου omited καγω και εγω λεγει φησι


καγω και εγω
This may be tolerated as identical.

But we can clearly notice, there are at least 4 differences in this short sentence.

If we check more, we can confirm that None of the OT verses in NT was quoted from LXX.

There may be some other Hebrew MT different from Ben Chayyim MT, and there could be some variance.
In this study, the correlation between OT and NT is not so simple.

If we check more closely we can easily confirm that the quotes in NT are different from LXX in almost every verse.

8. From my survey, whenever I check closely between NT and LXX, almost in every verse they differ each other! It takes quite a lot of time to check, but if you spend some time you can easily confirm this point.

9. While I am translating OT, often I notice LXX didn't translate Hebrew into Greek on the basis of Word-to-Word principle, but on the basis of Thought-to-Thought. I am very sure about this.
Even KJV didn't translate fully on Word-to-Word as I showed you above in Matt 1:23. There are some difficulties to apply Word-to-Word principle as I mentioned in Mt 1:23 because the sentence suddenly change the counterpart from ye to imperative to "thou" but feminine " virgin" If we stay with the Word-to-Word principle, there could be another problem with misunderstanding.


If Septuagint is not authentic, Apocrypha is groundless as well.

Jack Matthews
09-22-2006, 12:51 AM
I'd suggest a Jewish source related to the Council of Jamnia and the canonization of the Old Testament. Who would know better?

Darron Steele
09-22-2006, 01:20 AM
In Post #112 I was asked for "Proof" about my statement that the Palestinian Jewish Old Testament was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. I have already listed the evidence: Josephus mentioned that the Jews had accepted only 22 books in Against Apion 1:8, and not accepted as Scripture anything after the 400's B.C.E.. I have quoted the passage in prior posts on this thread. While the Protestant 39 comes from splitting up the Jews' 22, there is no system that I know of to get the Orthodox/Catholic 46 out of those 22 -- especially since at least a few of them come from the 100's B.C.E.. There is no "proof" that s/he would possibly accept.

...
I'm not forcing you to interact with Christians of other denominations. But if you choose to dispute with us, no matter what the venue, whether you are moderator or not, you ought to have the respect to be able to back up what you say, otherwise why waste your time and ours?

Orthodox, I am not Baptist. However, I am in complete disagreement with you on this. You were not approached by the operators and normal members of this board for debate -- you approached them/us. Baptists do have to notice our posts even if they post nothing in return, so if we post, they cannot avoid us. Further, if I debate Baptists on a Baptist board, which I do not typically do, I consider the burden of proof to be on ME to back up my statements to them; it is their board for them. Further, documentation after documentation has been addressed to you and your comrades on this, all of which has been disregarded.

We non-Baptist Christians are GUESTS. We are are here at their courtesy. They kindly granted us a dignity: if they are going to post against other denominations' beliefs, we have the dignity of a response. I have enjoyed this board because it is a great opportunity to practice building bridges across denominations; I was saved a Baptist, but presently tend toward the Churches of Christ/Independent Christian groups. I do not want to lose the privilege to be here; please have some respect.

Speaking of respect, I would like to publicly apologize to DHK for my impulsive out-of-line comments suggesting his specific course of action as moderator, and I thank him for his graciousness in never confronting me about it. I am sorry DHK, and thank you.

orthodox
09-22-2006, 01:27 AM
Roman Catholic, the Idol Worshippers and Goddess worshippers were not the true believers and the people who refused such idolatry, living faithful to the commandments of God were the true believers. They refused the Apocrypha.


I'm not in any of the above categories, so I guess I'm a True Believer. Cool.


It is not difficult to identify the claim of the authors for most of the books in Bible.
For example, Pentateuch won't have any problem even if we check them with such criteria, as Moses wrote them according to the commandments from God.
Do you doubt about Samuel ? about Isaiah ? about 12 prophets?


If I used you criteria, yes I would doubt the 12 prophets, because they don't conform to your criteria. Either abandon your false criteria, or come up with a new one, but don't live in denial of reality.


If Israelites of today wrote a letter to Mr. G Bush, they would have written in English. If anyone record the story about it, they would quote the exact wordings in English.


Really. And yet the NT is in Greek. I guess that means everybody in Palestine was speaking Greek.


But in case of Septuagint, the Greek language was far different from Hebrew.


Which is irrelevant.


Nope! it is not referring to Maccabees, but it was quite common to the martyrs and therefore it is indicating Rev 20:5 ( the rest of the people would not revive, while some chosen people enjoy the better resurrection)


LOL, look at the context of Hebrews 11. It is nothing to do with the context of Rev 20, it is about very specific situations that were encountered by prophets in the OT. Moses, Abraham etc etc.


So, such claim that Maccabees were quoted cannot be proven by it.


Only for those who don't WANT to see it and have a pre-conceived agenda.


Nope ! Roman Catholic taught the Genocide !
The Devout Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler, Devout Roman Catholic Himmler, Devout Catholic Goebbels, Mussolini, Franco the dictator of Spain, etc were all Roman catholic.


Zzzzzzz, take it up with the Roman Catholics. The point is, the OT has passages advocating genoide:

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2

If people started cutting books out of their bible because they don't like what is taught, there would be no end to it.


it is ridiculous that RC try to find the clues from Apocrypha to pray to the dead woman, dead people. Could you say where was Antiocus Ephipanes dead ?


And so we see your modus operandi. You decide from your own mind your doctrine, then you pick and choose what books will support it.




Josephus mentioned 22 books in the Bible,
5 books of Torah, 13 history books, 4 writings which include Psalm, which indicates all the OT bibles as the Protestants have today.
( Ref : The Dead Sea Scrolls Today by James C. Vanderkam, p 148)

You can find No Apocrypha mentioned in Josephus books.


Josephus doesn't list the books!! You can't find most books of the bible mentioned in Josephus, because he provides no list!!

I would say you are clutching at straws, but not really, you are clutching at nothing at all.


If Paul delievered the address in Hebrew to the Jews as we read in Acts 21:40 and 22:2, then how much more could we believe that the Israelites at that time used the Hebrew language in their RELIGIOUS life?
Hebrew was not dead ! it was living language as we remember the title on the Cross was written in Hebrew so that the passers-by could read in Hebrew!


The Hebrew language mentioned is the one that is otherwise referred to today as Aramaic. Classical Hebrew was dead, not the then-contemporary Hebrew language.


Have you ever read Bible in Greek and in Hebrew ?
I have read NT in Greek many times and some good portion of OT in Hebrew. I have much amount of comparison between NT Quote and LXX and confirmed that there are too many differences for the people to believe that the NT writers quoted LXX.


Amazing.


Moreover Dead Sea Scrolls showed the accuracy of Masoretic Texts when the scholars compared on Isaiah.


It's no use accurately copying the wrong text.


There is no jot and tittle in Greek which was mentioned by Jesus in Mt 5:18


!!*!*!**!*!!!!!

I thought you just made a big claim that you had read the NT many times in Greek? If so, how could you possibly make such a blunder???

Tell the listening audience what Greek words lie behind the KJV's "jot and tittle".


And the order of Septuagint is far different from Masoretic Text as MT 24:35 implies.

Jesus mentioned the first martyr of OT (Abel) and the last martyr of OT ( Zechariah) according to the order of Masoretic Texts, not in the order of Septuagint. Luke 24:44 proves Jesus mention the composition of the bible according to MT, not to Septuagint which include Apocrypha.

I hardly think that ordering means anything. The Jews put Chronicles at the end. But where is it in YOUR bible??? Yep, you guessed it, your protestant bible has it in the LXX order with the LXX book titles. Ever wonder why?

But if ordering is important there is another witness from the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the order of the Books which testifies to the traditional structure of the LXX Old Testament (Matthew 11:13f)

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias [Elijah], which was for to come."

Here Jesus reveals the prophetic identity of John the Baptist as the "Elijah" prophecied in the last verse of the LXX Old Testament (Malachi 4:5).

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

The application of this verse to John the Baptist is confirmed in Luke 1:17:

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The LXX Old Testament literally prophecies "until John the Baptist", whose coming is promised in the its very last verse.

For all the back and forth in this thread, there hasn't been a single proof put forward for any reason to reject the apocrypha. All we have is the say so of some 21st century baptists who have no authority for telling anybody what the canon is.

orthodox
09-22-2006, 01:29 AM
The Prologue of Sirach (in part)

<snip quote>


Uh huh. So so shall I take this as a retraction of your errors?

orthodox
09-22-2006, 01:42 AM
In Post #112 I was asked for "Proof" about my statement that the Palestinian Jewish Old Testament was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. I have already listed the evidence: Josephus mentioned that the Jews had accepted only 22 books in Against Apion 1:8, and not accepted as Scripture anything after the 400's B.C.E.. I have quoted the passage in prior posts on this thread. While the Protestant 39 comes from splitting up the Jews' 22, there is no system that I know of to get the Orthodox/Catholic 46 out of those 22

If you're not aware of ways that the ancients fitted the deuterocanonical books into the 22 book count, then sadly you havn't been reading the information I have presented already in this thread.

If you'd bothered to read it, it would show that reference to 22 books is meaningless, because there is no agreement on what deuterocanonicals it may or may not include or exclude. I've documented Church Fathers including deuterocanonicals in the 22, what have you documented to say they are definitely excluded?


Orthodox, I am not Baptist. However, I am in complete disagreement with you on this. You were not approached by the operators and normal members of this board for debate -- you approached them/us.


That's not what happened exactly. Some folks asked me to come here and set a few facts right in this thread. If baptists don't want to discuss things with other denominations providing evidence for their viewpoint, may I suggest either shutting down this forum area, or staying out. If you ask for dialogue by setting up an inter-faith forum, expect to be challenged to document.


Further, documentation after documentation has been addressed to you and your comrades on this, all of which has been disregarded.


Like what? I think that's flat out false, and it's funny coming from someone who is remaining willfully ignorant of what I have documented concerning the 22 book canon.

DHK
09-22-2006, 05:13 AM
If you're not aware of ways that the ancients fitted the deuterocanonical books into the 22 book count, then sadly you havn't been reading the information I have presented already in this thread.

If you'd bothered to read it, it would show that reference to 22 books is meaningless, because there is no agreement on what deuterocanonicals it may or may not include or exclude. I've documented Church Fathers including deuterocanonicals in the 22, what have you documented to say they are definitely excluded?
If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:

The Bible, Its History, Infallibility and Authority


"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 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."
2 Timothy 3:14-17 (NIV
Summary:

The presupposition of Christianity is that the Bible, as originally written down by people inspired by God, is the infallible word of God in written form. The Bible contains the divine answer to the problems we humans face throughout our lives, as well as the directives of God concerning how He is to be worshiped and served. While some problems of translation do exist, Christians believe that God Himself maintains the integrity and accuracy of His words through the work of the Holy Spirit.
General Information: The Bible contains 66 different books by various authors. The 39 books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, and the 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek and Aramaic. Below is a list of the books of the Bible and their possible authors (if known).
Book(s) -- Author(s)
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy -- Moses
Joshua-- Joshua and Eleazar
Judges-- Unknown
Ruth-- Unknown
1,2 Samuel-- Unknown
1,2 Kings-- Unknown
1,2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah-- Ezra, perhaps
Esther-- Unknown
Job-- An Unknown Israelite
Psalms-- David, mostly
Proverbs-- Solomon, Agur son of Jakeh, and King Lemuel
Ecclesiastes Song of Songs-- King Solomon
Isaiah-- Isaiah son of Amoz
Jeremiah-- The Prophet Jeremiah
Lamentations-- Jeremiah, perhaps
Ezekiel-- Ezekiel
Daniel-- Daniel
Hosea Hosea son of Beeri
Joel-- Joel son of Pethuel
Amos-- Amos
Obadiah-- Obadiah
Jonah-- Jonah son of Amittai, probably
Micah-- Micah
Nahum-- Nahum
Habakkuk-- Habakkuk
Zephaniah-- Zephaniah, a descendent of Hezekiah
Haggai-- Haggai
Zechariah-- Zechariah
Malachi-- Malachi, probably
Matthew-- Matthew
Mark-- John Mark
Luke-- Luke
John-- Apostle John
Acts-- Luke
Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon-- Paul
Hebrews-- Unknown
James-- James, brother of Jesus
1,2 Peter-- Simon Peter
1,2,3 John-- John
Jude-- Jude
Revelation-- JohnJust as infallible Jesus was born, by the work of the Holy Spirit, through a sinful woman, so was the infallible scripture born of the preceding list of authors by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Why do we have the particular 66 books listed?
The collection of the 66 books which we know as the Bible, is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The collection of the Old testament books is known as the Canon of the Old Testament and the collection of the New Testament books is known as the Canon of the New Testament. The word "canon" means standard or rule, and as applied to the scripture means that those particular books which are "canonized" have been granted authority as a rule of faith. By whom? is the natural next question. The answer is by God, Himself.
To quote Edward J. Young, "When the Word of God was written it became Scripture and, inasmuch as it had been spoken by God, possessed absolute authority. Since it was the Word of God, it was canonical. That which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact that the book is inspired of God." The concept of canonicity only has validity in the context of Christian theism. The following outline organizes the various assertions that Christians must make about the authority and infallibility of the Bible.
The Authority of Scripture
The Bible proclaims its own authority
Scripture is inspired by God
(II Timothy 3:14-17)
Belief in Scripture is necessary and commanded
(I Corinthians 14:36-38, John 5:46-47, I John 4:1-6)
God has promised to preserve His word for His people in all generations
(Matthew 5:17-18, John 10:35, Isaiah 59:21)
The New Testament writers all referred to the Old Testament as authoritative
The New Testament claims the same authority for itself as the Old Testament
(2 Peter 3:14-16)
"As Christians we receive the Bible as the Word of God which cannot be judged by any higher standard. The Word of God speaks for itself; it is not verified by any other than the self-verifying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
The External World cannot prove that the Bible is incorrect when it speaks of the world
There has never been a proven contradiction between what the Bible says and the reality of the world
There has never been a proven contradiction between the historical accountscontained in the Bible and in other recorded histories.
Personal Experience proclaims the Bible
Christians accept the Word of God because of the Holy Spirit's testimony to their hearts that the Bible's own claim is true.
Christians are allowed to believe in the Authority of the Scripture because of the spirit of discernment granted by the Holy Spirit, and because the Christian does not presuppose that he himself has the authority which God possesses to render something authoritative or not.
Note: Points B and C are taken nearly verbatim from Every Though Captive by Richard Pratt.Again, however, it is necessary to note that points A,B, and C can only be valid in the context of Christianity. It is God Who speaks to Christians through the Bible and Who allows the devil to make the Bible seem foolish to non-Christians: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (I Corinthians 1:18, NIV) and "...by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (II Corinthians 4:2-4, NIV).
Why do Protestants not accept the Apocryphal books as authoritative?
The Apocryphal books are about 15 books which were composed during the last two centuries before the birth of Christ and the first century afterwards. The Apocryphal books are:
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of EsdrasTobit
Judithl
The Additions to the book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
The letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
The First Book of the Maccabees
The Second Book of the MaccabeesSince 1546, the Roman Catholic Church has considered some of these books to be inspired and has included them with the Old Testament. These are, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and some supplements to Esther and Daniel. The Roman Catholic Church and a few other churches are the only religious groups which consider any of the Apocryphal books to be divinely inspired scripture. The following outline gives reasons why most protestant Christians do not believe in the Apocryphal books as authoritative.
The Primary reason is that The Jewish Canon, that Scripture which Jesus Himself believed in did not include the Apocryphal books.
The number of books in the Hebrew Old Testament is 24 in the Hebrew method of counting which is equivalent to the 39 books we have in our English translations with our English methods of counting.
The apocryphal books were only included in the Old Testament as late as the non-Christian Greek translation called The Septuagint. In other words, the Jewish Old Testament that Jesus believed to be authoritative did not contain the Apocryphal books. The Septuagint was translated around 300 B.C. while the earliest copies that we have are from 300 A.D. and it was between these 600 years that the Apocryphal books crept into the Greek Canon, yet they never appeared in the Hebrew Canon, nor did Jesus ever quote them or consider them to be authoritative.
No New Testament book references an Apocryphal book as authoritative.
Jesus says in Luke 24:44, "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (NIV).

DHK
09-22-2006, 05:16 AM
continued

The noted theologian Cornelius Van Til captures the attitude that all Christians should possess concerning the Bible in his book Why I Believe in God , which is written as a letter to an atheist:
"So I readily grant that there are some 'difficulties' with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that one faces, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways."

And further...
"Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things [limited world view of humanity], but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all. By my belief in God I do have unity in my experience. Not of course the sort of unity that you want. Not a unity that is the result of my own autonomous determination of what is possible. But a unity that is higher than mine and prior to mine. On the basis of God's counsel I can look for facts and find them without destroying them in advance. On the basis of God's counsel I can be a good physicist, a good biologist, a good psychologist, or a good philosopher. In all these fields I use my powers of logical arrangement in order to see as much order in God's universe as it may be given a creature to see. The unities, or systems that I make are true because [they are] genuine pointers toward the basic or original unity that is found in the counsel of God."

For further information about this subject, the following books are highly commended because of their attention to detail, and their authors' commitment to hold tightly to the doctrines of God as set forth in the Bible. Sources Used: Why I Believe in God Cornelius Van Til
Revelation and the Bible Edited by: Carl F.H. Henry
God's Inerrant Word Edited by: John Warwick Montgomery
Basic Christianity John R.W. Stott
Every Thought Captive Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
In Defense of the Faith Cornelius Van Til
The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? F.F. Bruce "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. .. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1,14 (NIV) Return to the Bible Page at CRTA http://www.reformed.org/bible/bible-intro.html

I trust this will satisfy you, even though it is the same basic information that we have been posting all along.
DHK

orthodox
09-22-2006, 05:44 AM
If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:


I have no interest in your beliefs, except in so far as you wish to attempt to *PROVE* them as being more reliable than the Church that Jesus Christ founded (aka, the Orthodox Catholic Church).

If all you want to do is pontificate about whatever it is you believe, whether it be the heresies of protestantism, hinduism, mormonism, or whatever ism you happen to follow, but you don't want to substantiate it, then it is a waste of time.

Eliyahu
09-22-2006, 08:54 AM
I think this thread has already exposed the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic and the Christians.

I don't count Roman Catholic as Christians.

You will see the following differences:

Roman Catholic believes and performs:


1) Salvation by Grace + Works
2) Salvation by baptism
3) Idol making for Mary or Joseph or Jesus
4) Idol worshipping for those statues
5) Immaculate Conception
6) Perpetual Virginity of Mary
7) Assumption : Ascension of Mary
8) Theotokos : calling Mary Mother of God, meaning God the Son of Mary.
9) Mary as Mother of Church
10) Queen of Heaven
11) Clergy system with hierarchy
12) Compulsory Celibacy
13) Papacy
14) Papal infallibility – Why does Benedict 16 apologize to Muslims if he is infallible ?
15) Whorish Tradition of so-called holy tradition ( against Col 2:8 after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ)
16) No Salvation outside Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html
17) Purgatory : Even the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise directly !
How miserable the Roman Catholics are !
18) Limbo
19) Mass which is ever asking forgiveness of the sins without bringing the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they believe that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross, they will find no reason to perform the mock-sacrifice show from next week ! since the sacrifice was done at the Cross once for ALL)
20) Transubstantiation ( Magic performance by Catholic Priests)
21) Confession to priests ( NOT to GOD)
22) Extreme unction, Extreme Unction after death
23) Prayer to the dead
24) Prayer for the dead (For this Roman Catholic need Apocrypha which is not the true part of the Words of God)
25) Prayer to Mary (Prayer to the Dead woman by 1.3 billion Catholics, Is Mary Omni-present ? When did she become so much powerful like that if she didn’t accept the prayers from all over the world while she was living? )
26) Pray with Rosario ( Typical paganism among Muslim, Buddhists)
27) all the signs of pagan origin such as ankh cross, mark of IHS, threefold hats for the pope, etc.
28) Chemarim costumes ( Black costumes used for Idol worshipping priests) – Zephaniah 1:4
29) Believing Apocrypha as Bible canon.
30) Crusade – Killling Albigenes and Jews, Plundering and Raping women.
31) Inquisition – Does Bible teach that Church should torture and kill the people if they are found Heretic ? Where is the teachings of Love Your Enemy ?
32) Indulgence – Typical Roman Catholic Business
33) Proxy wars thru Nazis, Aramada, etc.


True Christians believe,

Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Solis Deo Gloria
Reject the authority of Apocrypha as the Bible Canon, even though they may be referred to as an extra information. When AP contradicts Bible, it shouldn't and cannot override or supersede the Bible.
Christians believe God is the Creator of all the people and of the universe, while Roman Catholic believe god is the son of Mary, so the god of Roman Catholic is different from the God of True Christian believers.

If Roman Catholic believe that OT teaches the Genocide, it is extremely ridiculous.
God commanded the ethnic cleansing because God knew all the sins of the Canaanites and therefore they had to be cleansed as the divine punishment. But did Adolf Hitler or Crusaders received the commandments from God to perform the Holocaust and to kill the Jews and Christians ?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Did God command Catholics to perform the Inquisition ?
Torturing and Killing Christians were the hobby of Roman Catholics !
Now they are gearing up for another stage of Inquistion under Anti-Christ, the coming Pope!

Actually RC believes goddess decorated with the name of Mary, and their god is the son of goddess mary.
RC is not Christian. RC and Christians are too much different to be called one religion. One is Fake Christians, the other is True Christians as we see the difference between fake money and genuine bills.

orthodox
09-22-2006, 09:00 AM
I think this thread has already exposed the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic and the Christians.

I've been following this thread very closely, and as far as I know, there are no Roman Catholics participating in this thread.

So call me slow, but I fail to see how this thread can "expose" anything about Roman Catholics, any more than it could expose things about Hindus or Buddists.

Like most protestant utterances in this thread, things don't compute.

Eliyahu
09-22-2006, 01:00 PM
I've been following this thread very closely, and as far as I know, there are no Roman Catholics participating in this thread.

So call me slow, but I fail to see how this thread can "expose" anything about Roman Catholics, any more than it could expose things about Hindus or Buddists.

Like most protestant utterances in this thread, things don't compute.

Actually that was the question from the beginning.
When some of the issues which are common to RC were raised, you advocated RC and moreover what you posted were exactly the same as RC mostly so far. Therefore I presumed that your faith is the same as RC.

Now tell me what is the difference between your faith and RC.
Are you Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox?

If you are not RC, you don't have to defend them.

El_Guero
09-22-2006, 01:41 PM
Orthodox

Having discussed theology with an Orthodox priest - I believe that he and I had (and have) much more in common then you and I have.

You read like a disgruntled and burned out Christian that has picked up the moniker of orthodox to hide behind.

DHK
09-22-2006, 01:48 PM
I have no interest in your beliefs, except in so far as you wish to attempt to *PROVE* them as being more reliable than the Church that Jesus Christ founded (aka, the Orthodox Catholic Church).

If all you want to do is pontificate about whatever it is you believe, whether it be the heresies of protestantism, hinduism, mormonism, or whatever ism you happen to follow, but you don't want to substantiate it, then it is a waste of time.
So why are you here?
First you demand documentation of our beliefs
Then you contradict yourself by stating that you have no interest in our beliefs. If that is true and you are only here to advertise your own beliefs, and/or proselize, I will notify the administration immediately suggest a banning. That type of activity is not permitted on the Baptist Board.
Why are you here? Be honest.
I have stated my beliefs. I have documented as you have reqested.
Now, what will you do with them.
It is your obligation to come up with a viable solution to show how they are Biblically wrong, for our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible. Appeal to the Word of God. Wherein are we wrong?
Can you with any certain authority state that any NT author quoted from the LXX?
Can you with any certain authority state that any NT author quoted from the apocrypha?
If so where? Don't just give the reference. Give a detailed explanation, of how it is so, and why the author could not be quoting the MT, or even be making his own translation. Show that you have eliminated all other possibilities like any other scientist would in his field, instead of blindly accepting what your church authority tells you to believe.

If you are just a sounding board, an advertising board for your church you should find somewhere else to peddle your wares. This forum is for honest debate.
DHK

Squire Robertsson
09-22-2006, 03:30 PM
Actually that was the question from the beginning.
When some of the issues which are common to RC were raised, you advocated RC and moreover what you posted were exactly the same as RC mostly so far. Therefore I presumed that your faith is the same as RC.

Now tell me what is the difference between your faith and RC.
Are you Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox?

If you are not RC, you don't have to defend them.FYI, the Eastern Orthodox community, while pretty much united in its theology, is divided up along national or ethnic lines. So, a member of the Russian Orthodox church, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, and a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church hold to the same basic doctrines. They just look to their own patriarches and attendent hierarcies for guidence.

Add to that, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have historically held their services in the local language. The EO didn't have a Latin (or in their case Greek) everywhere policy.

Taufgesinnter
09-22-2006, 03:51 PM
If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:
[/list]
[/list]The RCCs haven't held since 1546 that the other books of Scripture listed there were Scripture. They responded to the Protestants' cutting out parts of the Bible by reiterating what constitutes the canon (although the list at Trent was, admittedly, a bit shorter than what was originally canonical). The RCCs have held since their founding in 1054 that those books were Scripture. They inherited that canon from the undivided Church whose councils in the 4th century proclaimed them to be canonical, at the same time that they decided what constitutes the NT.

Taufgesinnter
09-22-2006, 03:54 PM
I'm not even Catholic, yet I saw a whole slew of mistakes and misinformation in that description of RCC doctrines and practices. That said, you did have several things right. To know what Catholics really believe, you need to read the CCC.

David Michael Harris
09-22-2006, 04:31 PM
The Septuagint was used in the early Church, it's just a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Nothing wrong with it, I have one.

Other NT writings quote verses from non Protestant Bible books. Do not get too hung up on it.

Cling to your Bible but read the Apocrypha as a matter of interest, the book of Sirach especially, why that is not next to Proverbs in the Protestant Bible I will never know, it's brilliant.

Although it's important not to upset peoples faith, the Bible as we have it is suffienct to Salvation, all else is a bonus and great fun to read. :)

David

DHK
09-22-2006, 05:58 PM
The RCCs haven't held since 1546 that the other books of Scripture listed there were Scripture. They responded to the Protestants' cutting out parts of the Bible by reiterating what constitutes the canon (although the list at Trent was, admittedly, a bit shorter than what was originally canonical). The RCCs have held since their founding in 1054 that those books were Scripture. They inherited that canon from the undivided Church whose councils in the 4th century proclaimed them to be canonical, at the same time that they decided what constitutes the NT.
One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox. Throughout history God has never left himself without a witness. That witness has come through various groups of Bible believing Christians under different names, all opposing the heresies of the RCC.
Go back into history:
Who murdered John Huss, Wycliffe? William Tyndale, persecuted Luther, and many others who have stood for the Word of God. The Catholic Church throughout the annals of history has tried to keep the Bible from the hands of the common history.
When Tyndale came out with his translation of the Bible, the RCC gathered as many copies of it as possible and burned them all. They didn't want the common person to be able to read the Bible for themselves. Then they went after Tyndale himself and murdered him. This is the true character of the Catholic Church. They were never the guardians of the Bible.

God entrusted the keeping of the Bible to true believers who knew which books were inspired before the Catholic Councils were ever convened. In 2Pet.3, Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture. He also refers to the apostles and prophets in the same verse telling his readers to take heed to the writings of both, putting the writings of the Apostles on the same level as the Old Testament writings. It appears that Peter, during his time, knew which books (up to that time) were inspired, and which were not. Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know. The early Christians knew (through the teachings of the Apostles) which books were inspired. The Bible was basically being canonized as it was being written.
The doubtings and disputations (which Timothy was commanded to avoid listening to), came when certain false teachers crept into the church and tried to corrupt the Word of God. They tried to pass off their own writings as Scripture when they were not; they were the writings of false teachers. Paul refers to the false teachers in the church of Corinth. He warns the Ephesian elders of the false teachers that would invade their church. Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?
The Catholic Church has been a destroyer of the Bible, not a guardian.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
09-23-2006, 01:12 AM
One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox.

Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?

God entrusted the keeping of the Bible to true believers who knew which books were inspired before the Catholic Councils were ever convened.

The councils of God's Church convened in the fourth century, more than half a millennium before the RCC came into existence, so I agree with you.

Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know.

Speculation.

Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?

And yet the books of Holy Scripture some call Apocrypha were written long before.

Taufgesinnter
09-23-2006, 03:23 AM
Where I wrote, " Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?" I intended to add: The vast majority of the NT manuscripts we have today were preserved by the Orthodox, who regard the Received Text as the official NT of the Church.

DHK
09-23-2006, 05:12 AM
One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox.

Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?
What do you call Orthodox Christianity? If it is either the RCC or its eastern counterpart, the Orthodox Church--which has basically the same doctrine, then I don't consider that a Christian Church at all. They are not the bearers of truth, but of heresy. They have not existed since the apostles, but came from Constantine in the 4th Century.

Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know.

Speculation.
And why should this be speculation?

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter knew of the epistles of Paul, and apparently which ones were Scripture.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Note Peter puts the words of the Apostles (not the authors of the Apocrypha) on the same level, the same importance, as the prophets of the OT. This was a very important step for Jewish Christians seeing that they regarded the prophets of the Old Testament with very high esteem.

If you read through the epistles of Paul, over and over again you will find the phrase "by the commandment of the Lord." Paul wrote according to the command of the Lord. It was inspired. The Apocrypha was not.

For example:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

--Paul's word was authoritative. It was done in the name of Christ. It was the command of God. It was the inspired word of God. There is no disputing this fact. It is not mere speculation. He knew when he was speaking the inspired Word of God.

So did the OT prophets:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?

And yet the books of Holy Scripture some call Apocrypha were written long before.
They also quote from a Cretian philosopher and a Greek poet. So what. They also quote from the very words of Satan himself which you can read of in Genesis chapter 3 and Job chapter 1. Inspiration simply means that the words recorded in Scripture were recorded accurately just as God wanted them to be recorded. It does not mean that the entire source from where they originated was inspired. For example:
All the writings of the Cretian philosophers are not inspired.
All the writings of the Greek poets are not inspired.
All the words of Satan are not inspired.
All the words recorded in the LXX are not inspired.

There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that any book of the Apocrypha, as the Apocrypha stands today, is ever quoted in Scripture. No evidence whatsoever. In every thread on this board no one has been able to quote one reference to any book that has been accurately quoted in the NT.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
09-23-2006, 09:38 PM
What do you call Orthodox Christianity? If it is either the RCC or its eastern counterpart, the Orthodox Church--which has basically the same doctrine, then I don't consider that a Christian Church at all. They are not the bearers of truth, but of heresy. They have not existed since the apostles, but came from Constantine in the 4th Century.

Shame on you! In the last 100 years, over 100 million Christians died as martyrs for their faith in Christ. Over 99% of them were Orthodox! Don't cheapen the blood of millions of martyrs for Christ with such utter nonsense.

What do the dictionary and everyone else call Orthodox Christianity (when both words begin with capitals)? Ordinarily it does refer to the Orthodox Church, but not to Roman Catholicism or its counterpart, Protestantism (not when both words are capitalized to indicate a proper name).

You don't consider a Church that professes the name of Christ a Christian Church, even when such a Church confesses His full humanity and deity, His atonement for sin, His resurrection and ascension bodily, the Trinity, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, that we should fulfill God's commands out of love but not to merit salvation, that as we grow in grace we increasingly partake of the divine nature...I could go on, but it would be no use. You won't accept an obviously Christian church as being so if you disagree with it. That's very, very sad.

It's also sad that you make all these pronouncements about history while clearly knowing so little of it. You couldn't make those kinds of outrageous, Jack-Chickian assertions if you actually had studied church history in any depth or breadth. Do you believe in the Trinity? Thank the Orthodox Church and the first four of her councils for that, because almost all of the details are found there, not in Scripture. Do you observe Christmas? Probably not, but if you do, you're welcome.

The apostles and their own disciples (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) and those who shortly came after them (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus), as well as all the noted "greats" (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostum, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Cyprian, et al.), held all the same basic doctrines, save one or two. They all taught baptismal regeneration but realized God made exceptions as necessary. They all taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. By the end of the apostolic age, apostolic succession and the "monarchical" bishopric were already settled matters of doctrine and practice. There is a clearcut continuity from the apostles past Constantine. Constantine didn't found a church, or even establish one as a state church.

Do you consider Arianism a heresy? Sabellianism? Monophysitism? Nestorianism? Manichaeanism? Marcionism? Ebionism? If so, you're welcome.

The antiquity of the Orthodox Church is not doubted by genuine historical scholars, although there are arguments about identifying the OC to the exclusion of the RCC or whether the undivided Church should be considered the root of both instead. But that the same Church that was founded by the apostles triumphed over various and sundry heresies, wrote the Nicene Creed, and held at least seven ecumenical councils, the overwhelming majority of serious scholars, regardless of denomination, are agreed. That's where the historical evidence compels them.

It was the Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Greeek manuscripts of the NT. The Received Text is the official NT of Orthodoxy.

The liturgies used by the Orthodox Church include those that predate Constantine, esp. that of James of Jerusalem, which is attributed to circa A.D. 60-100. Those of Basil and John Chrysostum follow Constantine's time but still adhere to the same pattern of temple-synagogue-early church worship in style and format, and represent slight elaboration but mostly abridgment of the ante-Nicene liturgies.

If you are rooted in Monophysitism, then you may be an adherent of its offspring, Iconoclasm, by which you would declare the Incarnation-based use of icons and their reflection of the redemption of creation as heretical. I understand that.You may also not see that you are surrounded by so great cloud of witnesses absent from the body, and thus detest asking intercessory prayers of the saints who are face to face with the Lord. I can relate. You may also feel that a person's fate is sealed upon death, even though Judgment Day has not yet come, and think prayers on behalf of the departed are wrong. OK. Still, there's not a lot that an ordinary Christian with a healthy open mind and humbly open spirit can seriously fault the Orthodox Church for doctrinally. In practice, has it been faultless? Neither has yours. Neither has any.

As for having basically the same doctrine as the RCC, I consider papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, purgatory, Augustinian original sin, indulgences, transubstantiation, mandatory clerical celibacy, among several other points, rather basic differences. Serious ones.

And why should this be speculation?....

If you read through the epistles of Paul, over and over again you will find the phrase "by the commandment of the Lord." Paul wrote according to the command of the Lord. It was inspired. The Apocrypha was not.

Non sequitur. Thanks for playing.

For example:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

--Paul's word was authoritative. It was done in the name of Christ. It was the command of God. It was the inspired word of God. There is no disputing this fact. It is not mere speculation. He knew when he was speaking the inspired Word of God.

Yes, but he did not know, as you claimed, as far as anyone can know, when he was writing canonical Scripture. His other letter to the Corinthians, for example, lost to us, was, for him, an occasional letter addressing specific concerns that arose and making judgments about them with apostolic authority. So were the two we still have. There is nowhere in the Bible that indicates he ever considered any of his individual letters as a whole on a level with Exodus or Daniel, or some of them so and some not. That's what I meant by speculation on your part. Nothing else.

Eliyahu
09-24-2006, 09:36 PM
I wonder why RC delete the second Esdras in their Apocrypha? Is it because the Second Esdras condemn the Idolatry vehemently?
RC include the AP for their convenience of Idol worship and goddess worship. Why don't they include all the APocrypha?

I think DHK rightly pointed out that many RC misunderstand that RC preserved the Bible in the history, which is contrary to the fact.

Satan hates the people's reading the bible.
If we simplify the history between RC and Bible, RC vehemently prohibited her people from reading the Bible. When she failed, she disturbed the Bible by spreading the Bible contaminated with false, manipulated words.

Eliyahu
09-24-2006, 09:44 PM
Shame on you! In the last 100 years, over 100 million Christians died as martyrs for their faith in Christ. Over 99% of them were Orthodox!Don't cheapen the blood of millions of martyrs for Christ with such utter nonsense.


That 100 million may be including the devout Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, devout Roman Catholic Mussolini, devout Roman Catholic Franco, generalissimo of Spain.
After WWII, a Spanish newspaper reported that Hitler could have been canonized as a Saint only if he ended the war reasonably.

Muslim suicide bombers are called Martyrs by the Islam.

In many countries, Catholics were involved in the political Coup d'etat.
They are often called as Saints or Martyrs by Catholics.
Interestingly I noticed Cyril is called Saint ( Actually all the bornagain believers are Saints), though he was a tricky politician who established theotokos, paying bribery to the empress.

God judges all the sinners properly.
Any prize or canonization by human beings mean NOTHING.
We have to be faithful to the Bible teachings until we are awarded the crowns and prizes by God.

Taufgesinnter
09-25-2006, 12:39 AM
That 100 million may be including the devout Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, devout Roman Catholic Mussolini, devout Roman Catholic Franco, generalissimo of Spain.
After WWII, a Spanish newspaper reported that Hitler could have been canonized as a Saint only if he ended the war reasonably.

Muslim suicide bombers are called Martyrs by the Islam.

In many countries, Catholics were involved in the political Coup d'etat.
They are often called as Saints or Martyrs by Catholics.
Interestingly I noticed Cyril is called Saint ( Actually all the bornagain believers are Saints), though he was a tricky politician who established theotokos, paying bribery to the empress.

God judges all the sinners properly.
Any prize or canonization by human beings mean NOTHING.
We have to be faithful to the Bible teachings until we are awarded the crowns and prizes by God.I've noticed before that you like to rant against Roman Catholicism, even when, as in the case of the quote from me above, it means changing the subject. I have to assume that you've never read anything accurate about the suffering of Christians behind the Iron Curtain at the hands of the Communists, or in China, Sudan, etc., or you wouldn't be throwing flippant comments about Hitler and Mussolini in as counterpoint to a serious post about brethren in Christ being tortured to death for refusing to renounce Him. And if Hitler had been a devout RC, why would he have had so many priests gassed in concentration camps? But asking that question is following your rabbit trail, since my quote had nothing at all specifically to do with Catholicism, so never mind.

The only thing in your reply remotely related to my post (except for having the word 'martyr' in common with entirely different reference points) is saying that Cyril established Mary as the mother of Jesus--Theotokos--a topic relevant to Orthodox Christianity. If Jesus was God, then she was the Theotokos. If He was just a mortal man, she was not. There's no middle ground. As every first-year Bible college student knows from church history class, the title Theotokos was not placed on Mary to elevate her, but to defend the deity of Christ. If Jesus is God as the Bible insists, then the mother of Jesus is the God-bearer--she did not bear God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but God the Son. Anyone who denies that Mary is the Theotokos denies the virgin birth and the incarnation, and is definitely not Trinitarian. Period. The title Theotokos does not necessitate nor of itself promote "Mariolatry."

Tauf, not RCC

Eliyahu
09-28-2006, 09:13 AM
I've noticed before that you like to rant against Roman Catholicism, even when, as in the case of the quote from me above, it means changing the subject. I have to assume that you've never read anything accurate about the suffering of Christians behind the Iron Curtain at the hands of the Communists, or in China, Sudan, etc., or you wouldn't be throwing flippant comments about Hitler and Mussolini in as counterpoint to a serious post about brethren in Christ being tortured to death for refusing to renounce Him. And if Hitler had been a devout RC, why would he have had so many priests gassed in concentration camps? But asking that question is following your rabbit trail, since my quote had nothing at all specifically to do with Catholicism, so never mind.

The only thing in your reply remotely related to my post (except for having the word 'martyr' in common with entirely different reference points) is saying that Cyril established Mary as the mother of Jesus--Theotokos--a topic relevant to Orthodox Christianity. If Jesus was God, then she was the Theotokos. If He was just a mortal man, she was not. There's no middle ground. As every first-year Bible college student knows from church history class, the title Theotokos was not placed on Mary to elevate her, but to defend the deity of Christ. If Jesus is God as the Bible insists, then the mother of Jesus is the God-bearer--she did not bear God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but God the Son. Anyone who denies that Mary is the Theotokos denies the virgin birth and the incarnation, and is definitely not Trinitarian. Period. The title Theotokos does not necessitate nor of itself promote "Mariolatry."

Tauf, not RCC

The true Christians who suffered during the communist regime were not the Catholics, they were rather close to Baptists or Brethren. Russian Orthodox and Catholic Priests became the chairmen of the local communists party or the secretaries of the party in Russia.
In China the people who suffered there were mostly Watchman Nee group and Inland China Missionary group started by Hudson Taylor.

You will betray Trinity doctrine if you call Mary as Mother of God based on Trinity.

Are you saying Mary is the Mother of the God the Father ?
You may say No.
Then Resolve this:
God the Father is God.
Mary is not the Mother of God the Father.
But you said Mary is Mother of God.
Then are there 2 different God's in the World?

You may be worshipping another God different from the Only God served by true belivers.
This is why nobody in the Bible called her Mother of God.
Repeatedly I explain you.

Mary is Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
therefore
Mary is Mother of God.

God the father is God
Mary is Mother of God
therefore
Mary is Mother of God the Father.

Mary is Mother of God
God the Holy Spirit is God
Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

Does it take long time for you to understand the contradiction in the Human Syllogism?

Eliyahu
09-28-2006, 09:35 AM
People calling Mary as Mother of God is denying God the Father is God, and therefore Anathema!

Chemnitz
09-28-2006, 10:50 AM
Oh boy here we go again. :BangHead:


The incarnation, is a work of the entire Trinity by which the divine nature in the person of the Son alone assumed from the Virgin Mary a true human nature without transmutation and confusion.
- Chemnitz The Two Natures of Christ


nope no confusion of the persons of God here so nope Mary ain't the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit.


This warning also applies to the discussion of the hypostatic union namely, that the Son of God from eternity subsisted in the divine nature before assuming the human nature. For the flesh of Christ was not first formed and animated separately in the womb of Mary in such a way that afterwards the person of the Logos was united with this performed and animated flesh. For this would mean that the human nature of Christ at some time would have its own proper and peculiar subsistence before and outside the hypostatic union with the Logos. Nor would Mary have been the God-bearer (theotokos). Of necessity it would follow that there are two persons in the incarnate Christ. But the angel expressly said that by this conception in and of mary there should be born the Son of God (Lk 1:35). And He whom Mary conceived is called Immanuel (Mt 1:23). Therefore, this individual unit of human nature, which by the operation of the Spirit in the conception was separated from teh person of the Virgin Mary, at no time and at no moment of time existed or subsisted of and in itself before or outside the hypostatic union with the Logos.
-Chemnitz The Two Natures of Christ p101

And according to the understanding of the unconfused unity we confess Mary as the God-bearer (theotokos)
- Chemnitz The Two Nature of Christ p 183

Because of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, gave birth not to a mere, ordinary human being, but instead to a human being who is truly the Son of God the Most High, as teh angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty in his mother's womb, in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she remained truly the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin.
Formula of Concord VIII:24

...Even though she (Mary) is worthy of the highest honor, nevertheless she does not want herself to be made equal with Christ but instead wnats us to consider and follow her example...We contend that we are justified by the merits of Christ alone, not by the merits of the Blessed virgin.
Defense of the Augsburg Confession XXI:27


Do these sound like the words of somebody who worships Mary. I argue that the root of Mary worship is not the concept of theotokos but of the concept that the saints have an overabundance of grace which they can share with us, in addition the idea of the immaculate conception which argues that Mary herself was born perfect.

As to the protection of the Bible the church in Rome did keep and protect scripture until its leaders feel in love with power. Contrary to both Orthodox and Roman churches the canon was agreed upon before either were organized.

Taufgesinnter
09-28-2006, 02:08 PM
Actually, the canon was not agreed upon until the fourth century. This is well attested.

Taufgesinnter
09-28-2006, 02:11 PM
People calling Mary as Mother of God is denying God the Father is God, and therefore Anathema!If you're saying you don't understand the most basic theology, that Jesus is God, then we have bigger problems to deal with than Theotokos. I've never ever heard or read ANYONE anywhere who claims that Mary is Mother of God the Father! The title Theotokos, as has already been explained to you, is christological, not mariological.

Taufgesinnter
09-28-2006, 02:14 PM
The true Christians who suffered during the communist regime were not the Catholics, they were rather close to Baptists or Brethren. Russian Orthodox and Catholic Priests became the chairmen of the local communists party or the secretaries of the party in Russia.
In China the people who suffered there were mostly Watchman Nee group and Inland China Missionary group started by Hudson Taylor.

You will betray Trinity doctrine if you call Mary as Mother of God based on Trinity.

Are you saying Mary is the Mother of the God the Father ?
You may say No.
Then Resolve this:
God the Father is God.
Mary is not the Mother of God the Father.
But you said Mary is Mother of God.
Then are there 2 different God's in the World?

You may be worshipping another God different from the Only God served by true belivers.
This is why nobody in the Bible called her Mother of God.
Repeatedly I explain you.

Mary is Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
therefore
Mary is Mother of God.

God the father is God
Mary is Mother of God
therefore
Mary is Mother of God the Father.

Mary is Mother of God
God the Holy Spirit is God
Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

Does it take long time for you to understand the contradiction in the Human Syllogism?Very well--then we agree that you that must either deny that Jesus is God or you deny that Mary is His Mother. Then we're done here. You don't know enough history to have common ground to discuss the subject.

Chemnitz
09-28-2006, 04:58 PM
Actually, the canon was not agreed upon until the fourth century. This is well attested.

You see I disagree largely because of the passage in 2nd Peter where he refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture. Sure there were a few hold outs in wanting more or less but the books that we have today were largely agreed upon prior to the 4th century. What we have in the 4th century is just a reaffirmation of what the church already knew.

Taufgesinnter
09-29-2006, 02:47 AM
You see I disagree largely because of the passage in 2nd Peter where he refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture. Sure there were a few hold outs in wanting more or less but the books that we have today were largely agreed upon prior to the 4th century. What we have in the 4th century is just a reaffirmation of what the church already knew.The seven disputed NT books were 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation, as well as several OT books. IIRC.

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 09:18 AM
Very well--then we agree that you that must either deny that Jesus is God or you deny that Mary is His Mother. Then we're done here. You don't know enough history to have common ground to discuss the subject.

I believe Jesus is God. Period.
But I don't call Mary as Mother of God because nobody in the Bible called her in that way.
The Word God is usually understood to mean the Godhead Father when it is not specified with any Godhead, and therefore Mother of God can be misunderstood to mean the Mother of God.
If you cannot believe that Jesus is God without calling Mary as Mother of God, you are obsessed with goddess worhship belief.
Jesus was God before Mary existed on the earth. His deity has nothing to do with Mary.
Jesus said " Before Abraham was, I am" ( John 8:58)
Moses believed in Christ ( Heb 11:26)
Jesus was the Creator of Mary, Producer of Mary. Without Jesus, Mary could not exist on this earth ( Col 1:16, Eph 3:9)

Again, let me show you:

1) Mary is Mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God.
3) Mary is Mother of God.
4) God the Father is God
5) Mary is Mother of God
6) Mary is Mother of God the Father because God the Father is God.
7) Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit because Holy Spirit is God

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 4) ?

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 7) ?

God is One, and three Godheads are Tri-Unity.
Nobody in the Bible called Mary as Mother of God, and therefore all the writers of Bible were denying the deity of Jesus ?

Again I want to emphasize that when God is mentioned, it is normally understood meaning God the Father.
When you call Mary as Mother of God, it sounds that Mary produced God the Father, and pre-existed before God the Father.

Nobody in the Bible calls her as Mother of God.

When Elizabeth called Mary " Mother of my Lord" ( Lk 1:43), did she know the Trinity and meant that Oh, the Mother of God is coming! ?
The word Adonai was used by Sarah when she called Abraham as well ( 1 Pet 3:6 )
Jesus called her " woman"
Paul called her " woman"
Luke reported " mother of Jesus"
Mary never called herself as Mother of God, but called God the Savior, which means she herself is a sinner requiring the Savior.( Lk 1:47)

Where is Mother of God mentioned ?

Remember the word " Mother" has 2 important meanings:
1) Produce, Beget, Give birth to.
2) Pre-existence

This word cannot be applied to the God as God has no Father, no Mother, and He exist for Himself as Yehowah means.
Mary was a sinner needing a Savior Luke 1:47. The relationship between Mary and God is mentioned by her. She was a believer and God was the Savior. She never mentioned herself as Mother of God !

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 09:49 AM
1) Mary is Mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God.
3) Mary is Mother of God.
4) God the Father is God
5) Mary is Mother of God
6) Mary is Mother of God the Father because God the Father is God.
7) Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit because Holy Spirit is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God the Son.
Mary is the Mother of God the Son.
by contraction and because it is easier to say:
Mary is the Mother of God.
Not one person within the EOC or the RCC believes the following:
Mary is the Mother of God the Father
Mary is the Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the Mother of God, because she carried Jesus the God in her womb to give God his human nature.

Mary carried a God in her womb.
Mary gave birth to a God.
Mary is the Mother of a God.

Mary is mother of the second person of the Trinity.

Even Elizabeth acknowledged this:

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Luk 1:43 And2532 whence4159 is this5124 to me,3427 that2443 the3588 mother3384 of my3450 Lord2962 should come2064 to4314 me?3165

As you will notice that the first word given is God.
G2962
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Elizabeth was effectively saying:Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my God should come to me?

Deny Elizabeth and the Bible if you wish.

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 10:41 AM
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God the Son.
Mary is the Mother of God the Son.
by contraction and because it is easier to say:
Mary is the Mother of God.
Not one person within the EOC or the RCC believes the following:
Mary is the Mother of God the Father
Mary is the Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the Mother of God, because she carried Jesus the God in her womb to give God his human nature.

Mary carried a God in her womb.
Mary gave birth to a God.
Mary is the Mother of a God.

Mary is mother of the second person of the Trinity.

Even Elizabeth acknowledged this:

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Luk 1:43 And2532 whence4159 is this5124 to me,3427 that2443 the3588 mother3384 of my3450 Lord2962 should come2064 to4314 me?3165

As you will notice that the first word given is God.
G2962
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Elizabeth was effectively saying:Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my God should come to me?

Deny Elizabeth and the Bible if you wish.

If you know the writings of EOC, could you show me any writings by the Bible Authors calling Mary as Mother of God ?

Are you saying Elizabeth called Mary " Mother of God " ? You are Bible Creator. Roman Catholics and their followers calling Mother of God are the Bible Creators for their goddes worship!

You are saying Mary gave birth to A God, which may have to be corrected
"mary gave birth to a god" Neither Mary called herself as Mother of God, nor called the disciples Theotokos.

You never differentiated God the Father from God in the words of Mother of God.
Nobody in the Bible called Mary as Mother of God, and even in the future, in the heaven nobody will call her Mother of God.
Read Revelation, could you find Mary exalted anywhere ?
People calling Mother of God will be ashamed in the presence of God, as no true believers will call her so.

Calling Mother of God means denying God the Father is God, as they say Mary is Mother of God, but not the Mother of God the Father.
If Mary is Mother of God and God the Father is God, then Mary should be Mother of God the Father. Why do you encounter this contradiction? How could you resolve this problem ? Why does nobody in the Bible call Mother of God ?

In your eyes : Lord is the same as God ?
Let me write down clearly:
L-O-R-D is different from G-O-D in spelling.
Jesus is God and therefore you can call Mary as Mother of Jesus.
Why do you want to stick to Mother of God ?
Isn't it because you are obsessed with goddess worship as I said ?

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 10:48 AM
Mary is the Mother of God the Son.


Is Bible wrong :


Heb 7:3

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Bible explains about Melchizedek and says Melchizedek has no mother and is similar to Son of God.
Doesn't it mean that Melchizedek has no mother, no father no end of life, in that sense he is like unto Son of God, right ?
Why bible ignore Mother of God ?

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 10:51 AM
You have not answered the following questions:



1) Mary is Mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God.
3) Mary is Mother of God.
4) God the Father is God
5) Mary is Mother of God
6) Mary is Mother of God the Father because God the Father is God.
7) Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit because Holy Spirit is God

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 4) ?

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 7) ?


Is God in 3) different from God in 4) ?

Is God in 3) different from God in 7) ?

Please answer by Yes or No!

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 04:02 PM
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

You ignored the BUT.

Melchizedek was without Father and was without a mother and was without descent having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, BUT ( Unlike Jesus who had both a Father(God) and Mother(Mary), Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God abiding as a priest continually.


Footnote on7:3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains . . . forever.

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 04:17 PM
You have not answered the following questions:



1) Mary is Mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God.
3) Mary is Mother of God.
4) God the Father is God
5) Mary is Mother of God
6) Mary is Mother of God the Father because God the Father is God.
7) Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit because Holy Spirit is God

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 4) ?

What is the difference between God in 3) and God in 7) ?


Is God in 3) different from God in 4) ?

Is God in 3) different from God in 7) ?

Please answer by Yes or No!

Yes.

3 is the simplication of "Mary is the Mother of GOD THE SON"

That is the Mystery of the Trinity!

God the Father
is different from
God the Son
is different from
God the Holy Spirit

Three distinct persons make up the Godhead.

Here are some verses that show the dinstinction:

Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

You can blaspheme Jesus and be forgiven, but if you blaspheme against the Holy Ghost you can not be forgiven.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Distinction, Distinction, Distincition instead of saying this:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the GOD.

TRHEE DISTINCT PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD.

And yes Godhead is in the bible:

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 04:23 PM
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God. They don't occupy the same space. And I would imagine the Holy Spirit is occupying a place to the left of God.

Chemnitz
09-29-2006, 04:58 PM
The seven disputed NT books were 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation, as well as several OT books. IIRC.

I know, a few ECF's disputed their inclusion. I will be the first to admit my position is a matter of faith, but I seriously doubt God would leave His word in the lurch for 400 years. In my research of the canon, I have found a decided lack of first century writing and very little 2nd century evidence. My theory is that because St. John did not die until ~100 A.D. there was no need for any lists because 1) an apostle still lived 2) after his death most church leaders had studied with John and there for learned from him what was canonical 3) pseudopigraphal writings didn't start appearing until ~150 A.D. therefore there was little to be confused by in the church.

Tauf you are wasting your time with Eliyahu, he is horribly afraid of admitting that the ECF's are right concerning theotokos because he would have to admit the RCC is right about something.

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 08:01 PM
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

You ignored the BUT.

Melchizedek was without Father and was without a mother and was without descent having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, BUT ( Unlike Jesus who had both a Father(God) and Mother(Mary), Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God abiding as a priest continually.


Footnote on7:3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains . . . forever.

The word in Greek behind But is De which can mean " But", "And", "Rather"
It doesn't mean that Melchizedek had no father, no mother, no beginning of days, no end of life, abideth as Priest continually ( forever), But Son of God does have father, have mother, have the beginning of days, have the end of life, is not priest forever.
The reason why Bible inserted " But " is because, Melchizedek had no end of life, "INSTEAD" He was similar to Son of God.
Do you know why ?

Actually Melchizedek was the Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ, having no beginning, no end of life.
Bible says He was made like unto Son of God, which sounds like mentioning different persons.
However, Bible was comparing 2 stages of one person.
One photo was the one of Pre-Incarnate ( like Infant's) and the other photo was the one of post Incarnate Jesus Christ ( like grown-up adult's photo).
Both persons are very similar because they had no earthly father, no earthly mother, no beginning of days, no end of life, remaining as Priest forever. Who can be the permanent Priest except Christ ?

Eliyahu
09-29-2006, 08:30 PM
Yes.


Yes means the God in the sentence of " Mary is the Mother of God" and the God in the sentence of " God the Father is God" are the same, one person God, right ?
Then you are claiming Mary is Mother of God the Father!
If you deny it, you are denying what you are saying!
If you deny it, you are denying Trinity!
If you deny it, you are claiming that God the Father is not God.


3 is the simplication of "Mary is the Mother of GOD THE SON"

You are saying what RC don't say.
I have never heard RC saying Mary is Mother of God the Son.
They all the time said Mary is Mother of God.
Remember again, when people simply say God, it means God the Father.


That is the Mystery of the Trinity!

Now when you encounter the impasse, you just excuse it as a mystery.

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS ( Rev 17:5)


God the Father
is different from
God the Son
is different from
God the Holy Spirit

Three distinct persons make up the Godhead.

You sound like explaining Trinity as A Monster with three heads because
you lack the other truth that the three Godheads share all things together and exist in the other Godheads commonly, which means Tri-Unity, and therefore Jesus said Father is in Him and He is in Father,


Here are some verses that show the dinstinction:
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Yes, the Role is different, but it doesn't mean that Son of God has Mother, and that God the Father has a Wife.

Normally If a Son has a Mother and a Father, then it means that the Father and Mother are the marital spouse, right ? So, RC insist on Theotokos to imply that Mary is the Wife of God, or Queen of Heaven, right ? Read Jeremiah 44 thru.

How do you call the Relationship between Mary and God the Father?
Your Answer is very important because normally God means God the Father when people simply call Him God.
If you call Mary as Maid-Servant of God the Father, then it means that Mary is the Woman servant of God because God the Father is simplified as God normally.
Answer me, How do you define the relationship between Mary and God the Father?

Theotokos has a big problem with Trinity !


You can blaspheme Jesus and be forgiven, but if you blaspheme against the Holy Ghost you can not be forgiven.

Do you know why ? Tell me why, then I will let you know my interpretation.


Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Distinction, Distinction, Distincition instead of saying this:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the GOD.

TRHEE DISTINCT PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD.

Do you notice " the name " is singular ?
The Name in singular is shared by three persons.
This is why Peter mentioned people should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ( Acts 2:38) Was Peter wrong ? One name is shared by Tri-Unity and this is Trnity.

You are trying to split the God into 3 pieces, describing God as a Monster with 3 heads.


And yes Godhead is in the bible:

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Yes, Godhead is mentioned in the Bible, but you should remember that
Godhead was not granted by Mary and therefore Mary has no right to claim the Mother of Godhead of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was God the Son before Mary was born!
Mary could not exist without God the Son.
Jesus Christ who is the God the Son planned and created all things including Mary.
Mary was Hell-bound sinner and Jesus came down to save her.
Abraham anticipated to see His days and saw it ( Jn 8:56) Jews asked " did you see Abraham? " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham, I am"

Finally would you answer me, what is the relationship between Mary and God the Father ?

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 11:15 PM
Mary is a daughter of God the Father.

Mary is in indirectly the spouse of the God the Holy Spirit.

Mary is mother of God the Son.


Any more questions?

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 11:24 PM
Your knowledge of the teaching of Mystery in the Bible have be weighed and measured and has been found to be wanton.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Col 4:3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

balls in your court.

Inquiring Mind
09-29-2006, 11:25 PM
You are saying what RC don't say.
I have never heard RC saying Mary is Mother of God the Son When they say Mother of God, it is an implied Mother of God the Son

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 06:17 AM
Mary is a daughter of God the Father.
[quote]

God the Father is God. But you say Mary is Mother of God. Then do you mean " Daughter of God is Mother of God" ?


[quote]
Mary is in indirectly the spouse of the God the Holy Spirit.
This means that you believe Mary is the wife of God the Holy Spirit, right?
So, are you saying that Mary had a sexual relationship with Holy Spirit?



Mary is mother of God the Son.
Any more questions?

Was Mary Mother of God the Son before He was born ?
Where was Mary when God the Son created the whole universe and all the mankind ?
Where was Mary when God the Son created her mother and father ? Was she Mother of God the Son when He created her father and mother ?

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 06:26 AM
When they say Mother of God, it is an implied Mother of God the Son

Partly, yes. But they use the term in order to give the impression that she is mother of God the Father. I never heard Catholic saying Mother of God the Son. If so, Theotokos should be changed to "Theohuiostokos"
When people say God without mentioning Godhead, it means God the Father. This is why nobody in the Bible called Mary as Mother of God.

Ask Pope to declare to the Muslims that
Mary is mother of Allah ! as they believe Allah is God, and you believe Mary is Mother of God.

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 06:27 AM
Theotokos has a big, big problem with Trinity.
Theotokos denies God the Father is God.
God the Father is God who has no mother.
Theotokos is an Insult to God, which God hates.

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 06:43 AM
The word " Mystery " should not be used to abuse and deface the Only True God who has no mother, no father, no beginning, no end.

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 06:55 AM
If you believe Mary is the daughter of God, then you should call her Daughter of God, not mother of God. period.

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 07:14 AM
Galatians 1:19 says " James, Lord's brother"

Is James a Brother of God as the Lord means God and Jesus is God ?
If you deny calling James as Brother of God, you are denying that Jesus is God, right ?


Joseph was the stepfather of God, King David was the great grand father of God.
Adam was the ancestor of Mary Mother of God, then Adam is the ancestor of God, right ?

God created His own Ancestor !

Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist was the relative of Mary, then Elizabeth is the relative of God.

The above is Roman Catholic Comedy.

2 Corinthians 5:16

Mary wife of Clopas is told to be sister of Mary, then she is Aunt of God ( John 19:25)

But the Bible says
Our mother is Sarah ( Gal 4:26, 1 Pet 3:6)

Therefore, henceforth know we no man according to the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him so no more.

Eliyahu
09-30-2006, 07:24 AM
The reason why James the brother of Jesus is not exalted is because he cannot be worshipped as goddess, and therefore we never hear Roman Catholic exalting him as Brother of God.

Oh, Roman Catholic may have to search for the Alumni of God from the same school of gods.

Chemnitz
09-30-2006, 07:48 AM
:rolleyes:

Inquiring Mind
10-02-2006, 01:27 PM
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto

Inquiring Mind
10-02-2006, 01:38 PM
Partly, yes. But they use the term in order to give the impression that she is mother of God the Father. I never heard Catholic saying Mother of God the Son.And I never heard any RCC or EOC say that she is Mother of God the Father either. It is your stubborness that maintains that "Mother of God" means "Mother of God the Father"

If so, Theotokos should be changed to "Theohuiostokos"
When people say God without mentioning Godhead, it means God the Father. This is why nobody in the Bible called Mary as Mother of God.Yes they did. You're just too stubborn to recognize it. I have pointed it out before and I will point it out again.

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? lord with a Captial L always means God.

Luk 1:43 And2532 whence4159 is this5124 to me,3427 that2443 the3588 mother3384 of my3450 Lord2962 should come2064 to4314 me?3165

G2962 κύριος kurios koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Primary definition is GOD. Captial L implies primary definition.


Ask Pope to declare to the Muslims that
Mary is mother of Allah ! as they believe Allah is God, and you believe Mary is Mother of God.That's grasping at straws now. You good as well know that they don't consider Jesus as God. They believe he was just merely a Prophet.

Your ignorant ranting is getting old.

Inquiring Mind
10-02-2006, 01:47 PM
If you believe Mary is the daughter of God, then you should call her Daughter of God, not mother of God. period.She is not a daughter of God?

I am a son of God, aren't you as well?

Inquiring Mind
10-02-2006, 02:10 PM
This means that you believe Mary is the wife of God the Holy Spirit, right?No.

So, are you saying that Mary had a sexual relationship with Holy Spirit? No. The Scriptures are silent about the exact mechinism used.


Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why send the Holy Spirit when God could just snap his fingers and she becomes instantly pregnant.

Let's look at the this phrase:

for that which is conceived in her is of MAN.

What would be your conclusion? Sexual Relations?

now take the same phrase and change it:

for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost

What would be your conclusion? If you used the same logic as you did for the first phrase then, Sexual Relations would be your answer as well. But it would be a bit unsettling and disturbing to think about it in that same context.

Inquiring Mind
10-02-2006, 02:16 PM
Theotokos has a big, big problem with Trinity.Really? How?

Theotokos denies God the Father is God. How?

God the Father is God who has no mother.No Argument there.
God the Son is God whom does have a mother.
God the Son was nourished in the womb by a human female.
God the Son suckled on the breast of a human female.

Theotokos is an Insult to God, which God hates.How? Mary carried a God in her womb. How would God hate that, since it was God whom placed himself there?

DHK
10-03-2006, 06:12 PM
And I never heard any RCC or EOC say that she is Mother of God the Father either. It is your stubborness that maintains that "Mother of God" means "Mother of God the Father"
The exact phrase "holy Mary Mother of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son" is used often in the Catholic Church.

Inquiring Mind
10-04-2006, 04:53 PM
From Ligonier Ministries: Mary Audio series

These lectures were designed to unravel false teaching about Mary's role in the New Testament and in the life of the church. R.C. examines the Catholic rosary controversy, showing that while Protestants can affirm that Mary was "the mother of God," the remainder of the prayer should be rejected as un-Biblical.

R.C. teaches that although we must reject false teaching about Mary, we should not minimize her. He teaches that by studying Mary's life, Christians can discover an important example of godliness and submission to our magnificent God and Savior.

Inquiring Mind
10-04-2006, 04:56 PM
The exact phrase "holy Mary Mother of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son" is used often in the Catholic Church.when and where? Never heard it all when I have visited them. It's not part of the Sunday/Daily Mass. So where are you dredging this up.

I have taken a misselette home. It contains all the wording that is used in the Mass. I don't find it.

Taufgesinnter
10-05-2006, 03:46 AM
The exact phrase "holy Mary Mother of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son" is used often in the Catholic Church.I googled that phrase and not a single document on the entire Internet turned up with their search engine.

I read this to my best friend and his wife. She said, "Never heard it!" She added that she had attended Catholic schools for eight years and if she'd ever said anything like that, she would've been called a heretic.

Our own Divine Liturgy says, "It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blameless, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify thee." It is crystal clear that it is God the Word she bore.

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 10:08 AM
I googled that phrase and not a single document on the entire Internet turned up with their search engine.
That was the very first thing I did myself and it came up empty. I then searched a missilette and it came up nil as well.

Slander?

Eliyahu
10-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Really? How?

How?
No Argument there.
God the Son is God whom does have a mother.
God the Son was nourished in the womb by a human female.
God the Son suckled on the breast of a human female.

How? Mary carried a God in her womb. How would God hate that, since it was God whom placed himself there?

I have answered to all the arguments.
If you do not understand the big problem contradicting each other between Theotokos and Trinit, you must have a big problem with your sanity and inteligence.
If Mary is not Mother of God the Father while you are saying Mary is Mother of God, then are you not saying God the Father is not God?
If you believe Mary is daughter of God, then isn't it right that you should call her daughter of God? Why do you call the daughter as mother ?
Is your daughter your mother?

If RC meant Mother of God the Son, they must have said so, but no phrase is like that!
Agan do you not understand yet that Nobody in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God?
Who in the Bible calls or mentions Mary as Mother of God?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY! except stupid, stubborn and whorish Roman Catholic and their followers!

Eliyahu
10-05-2006, 10:24 AM
God the Son was already was God the Son before Mary was born.
Mary was created by God the Son.
Mary could not exist without the plan and creation by God the Son.
God the Son was already born by Holy Spirit before He came out of Mary ( Mt 1:20) - Read Bible in Greek.
Mary was not the biological mother of God the Son. She was a mere a surrogate mother. Ovum of woman is not designed to be fertilized with the Word, nor did the Word change to a sperm, but the Word of God simply became ( came in the form of ) flesh as we read 1 Tim 3:16.
Mary was the mother for the humanity of Jesus only for a short time during the Eternity of God the Son.
Mary was Hell bound person without the redemption by God the Son. God the Son redeemed her from the sins.
Deity of God the Son was not inherited from Mary.
Mary was a sinner requiring Savior and God the Son was her Savior.
God the Son who met Abraham was not different from God the Son Jesus.
Before Abraham was, I am. ( John 8:58)
The person who met Abraham( John 8:56-58) or whom Moses was working for ( Heb 11:26) didn't disapear but came down to this world. His divine nature didn't disappear but showed up.
Mary is not the object to worship or to venerate as only God should be exalted.
What Roman Catholics are doing for Mary is goddess worship decorated with the name shown in the Bible, decorated with the name of person related to Jesus in human form. goddess worshippers are desperate to find out the clue to continue their goddess worship, idol worship decorated and beatutified with Christian names.
That is Whorish Religion of Babylon! O miserable people, bounding for the Lake of Fire!

Mary was not the Mother of God the Father who is normally simplified as God.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son because she was not the mother for the deity of Jesus.
Mary was the mother of Jesus for the humanity and this is why the Bible calls her simply Mother of Jesus, no further exaltation.

Rev 17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 11:08 AM
You fail to grasp the concept:

Even anti-catholics like R.C. Sproul have grasped the concept:

From Ligonier Ministries: Mary Audio series

These lectures were designed to unravel false teaching about Mary's role in the New Testament and in the life of the church. R.C. examines the Catholic rosary controversy, showing that while Protestants can affirm that Mary was "the mother of God," the remainder of the prayer should be rejected as un-Biblical.

R.C. teaches that although we must reject false teaching about Mary, we should not minimize her. He teaches that by studying Mary's life, Christians can discover an important example of godliness and submission to our magnificent God and Savior.

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 11:36 AM
I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary

"Mother of God"

They could call her

"Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two"

...but don't you think "Mother of God" is easier? Which way is really less confusing?

DHK
10-05-2006, 01:06 PM
I googled that phrase and not a single document on the entire Internet turned up with their search engine.

I read this to my best friend and his wife. She said, "Never heard it!" She added that she had attended Catholic schools for eight years and if she'd ever said anything like that, she would've been called a heretic.
Perhaps I have heard then, I don't know. I haven't read all the thread. So I might ask why is it important to have these two phrases juxtaposed together?
(And no, this is not slander IQ; that statement about slander is slander).

Here are two things that every Catholic knows and cannot deny.
1 The Hail Mary.
"Hail Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now."
That takes care of the first part of the phrase.

2. The Apostles Creed.
"...born of the virgin Mary..." That takes care of the second part. Yes Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ.
The second point we all agree with. The first point we have a problem with. Why both parts must be in one sentence, I don't know.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 02:23 PM
Perhaps I have heard then, I don't know. I haven't read all the thread. So I might ask why is it important to have these two phrases juxtaposed together?
(And no, this is not slander IQ; that statement about slander is slander).

Here are two things that every Catholic knows and cannot deny.
1 The Hail Mary.
"Hail Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now."
That takes care of the first part of the phrase.

2. The Apostles Creed.
"...born of the virgin Mary..." That takes care of the second part. Yes Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ.
The second point we all agree with. The first point we have a problem with. Why both parts must be in one sentence, I don't know.
DHKFirst: The Hail Mary is not part of the established and sanctioned Liturgical Service that is the Mass.

Second: The Hail Mary is optional. It is not binding on the Individual.

Third: How about going and buying a copy of the "Cathechism of the Catholic Chruch" and find out for yourself what it teaches.

As for "Mother of God" go up 2 posts.

DHK
10-05-2006, 05:16 PM
First: The Hail Mary is not part of the established and sanctioned Liturgical Service that is the Mass.

Second: The Hail Mary is optional. It is not binding on the Individual.

Third: How about going and buying a copy of the "Cathechism of the Catholic Chruch" and find out for yourself what it teaches.

As for "Mother of God" go up 2 posts.
Whether the "Hail Mary" is part of the Mass or not is totally irrelevant. You are not a Catholic are you? Were you ever? I was--for 20 years. The "Hail Mary" is a requirement for most Catholics, if not all. It is usually what the priest gives for penance after going to the confessional. He may say: "Pray 10 Hail Mary's and...etc." I've been there, done that. Catholics are highly encouraged to pray through the rosary--even on a daily basis. That in itself is 53 Hail Mary's. The rosary is one of the central parts of the Catholic's life.
Mary is not the mother of God.
She is the mother of man Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. God used her as a vessel to bring forth the body of our Lord. That does not make her the mother of God any more than it makes Joseph his father just because he was one of the parents that raised him. Both were used of God. Christ was known as a carpenter just as Joseph was. He learned the trade of his "father." Does that mean that Joseph is the father of God? If Mary is the mother of God, then why not Joseph the the father of God. Be logical. They were his earthly parents while in childhood. God used them for a short period of time whlle on earth.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 06:01 PM
Whether the "Hail Mary" is part of the Mass or not is totally irrelevant. You are not a Catholic are you? Were you ever? I was--for 20 years. The "Hail Mary" is a requirement for most Catholics, if not all. It is usually what the priest gives for penance after going to the confessional. He may say: "Pray 10 Hail Mary's and...etc." I've been there, done that. Catholics are highly encouraged to pray through the rosary--even on a daily basis. That in itself is 53 Hail Mary's. The rosary is one of the central parts of the Catholic's life.
Mary is not the mother of God.
She is the mother of man Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. God used her as a vessel to bring forth the body of our Lord. That does not make her the mother of God any more than it makes Joseph his father just because he was one of the parents that raised him. Both were used of God. Christ was known as a carpenter just as Joseph was. He learned the trade of his "father." Does that mean that Joseph is the father of God? If Mary is the mother of God, then why not Joseph the the father of God. Be logical. They were his earthly parents while in childhood. God used them for a short period of time whlle on earth.
DHK

I think you have misunderstanding of your previous faith. You probably left your faith at age 20? Right? Cradle Catholics are really [uneducated? Edited to remove insulting language.] about their own faith and about what is actually taught. They are ... [Edited to remove defamatory language.] And having studied the Catholic faith, I know your accusations are false. The hail mary is not required. It may have been pushed on you as a child during CCD. I will give you that. But is not a requirement of the faith.

Inquiring Mind
10-05-2006, 06:02 PM
Whether the "Hail Mary" is part of the Mass or not is totally irrelevant. You are not a Catholic are you? Were you ever? I was--for 20 years. The "Hail Mary" is a requirement for most Catholics, if not all. It is usually what the priest gives for penance after going to the confessional. He may say: "Pray 10 Hail Mary's and...etc." I've been there, done that. Catholics are highly encouraged to pray through the rosary--even on a daily basis. That in itself is 53 Hail Mary's. The rosary is one of the central parts of the Catholic's life.
Mary is not the mother of God.
She is the mother of man Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. God used her as a vessel to bring forth the body of our Lord. That does not make her the mother of God any more than it makes Joseph his father just because he was one of the parents that raised him. Both were used of God. Christ was known as a carpenter just as Joseph was. He learned the trade of his "father." Does that mean that Joseph is the father of God? If Mary is the mother of God, then why not Joseph the the father of God. Be logical. They were his earthly parents while in childhood. God used them for a short period of time whlle on earth.
DHKobviously you can't read:

I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary

"Mother of God"

They could call her

"Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two"

...but don't you think "Mother of God" is easier? Which way is really less confusing?

DHK
10-05-2006, 07:17 PM
obviously you can't read:

I suppose if you wanted to avoid heresy you could advocate that rather than calling Mary

"Mother of God"

They could call her

"Mother of the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who in His divine person is joined by virtue of circumincession or perichoresis with the other members of the Blessed Trinity and equal in all things, yet subsistingly relationally distinct, consubstantial with the other two"

...but don't you think "Mother of God" is easier? Which way is really less confusing?
I read perfectly well.
Yes they could say that. But they don't. And they don't mean that either.
They teach very clearly that Mary is the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, co-redemptrix with Christ. Ask Bob to post some of the prayers of the well known Catholic saints and find out what they believe about Mary. According to the RCC, Mary is the mother of God, far more than what the typical Protestant conception or theological view is.
DHK

DHK
10-05-2006, 07:24 PM
I think you have misunderstanding of your previous faith. You probably left your faith at age 20? Right? Cradle Catholics are really [uneducated? Edited to remove insulting language] about their own faith and about what is actually taught. They are ... [Edited to remove defamatory language.] And having studied the Catholic faith, I know your accusations are false. The hail mary is not required. It may have been pushed on you as a child during CCD. I will give you that. But is not a requirement of the faith.
I resent your demeaning remarks. They should be edited. If another moderator sees them I will give him the honor. You don't know me. You don't know how far into the Catholic Church I went.
I resent the name-calling of being: clueless, stupid, and not understanding what I have been taught. If you can't carry a debate without such language accusations and demeaning language I suggest you go somewhere else.
DHK

Eliyahu
10-06-2006, 09:20 AM
Was Mary really carrying the Only, Almighty, True God in her womb ?

We should be careful with that expression.

When Israelites carried the Ark of Covenant where God used to dwell in, did they carry God?
If one think that God is dead or that God need to be carried by human beings as they carry the handicapped people, then such expression can be correct.
In human eyes, it may have looked like that Mary carried God in her womb.
That is like an iceberg.
God who operated the whole world even at the time when He was in the womb of Mary, was carrying Mary !

Stupid people blinded with goddess worship may not understand this profound truth.

No one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. ( John 3:13 - Darby)
Even at the time when He was in the womb of Mary, He was in the heaven as well.

Eliyahu
10-06-2006, 10:09 AM
As there are still some people on this board who do not understand the contradiction with Mother of God theory, I would re-iterate explaining the problems with it.
Calling Mary as Mother of God has started from Human Syllogism and encounters the bigger problem with its contradiction in Trinity.

Let's see the sentences:

1) Jesus is God
2) Mary is Mother of Jesus
3) Therefore Mary is Mother of God
4) God the Father is God
5) Mary is Mother of God
6) Therefore Mary is Mother of God the Father
7) God the Holy Spirit is God
8) Mary is Mother of God
9) Therefore Mary is Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

What is wrong with any of the above sentences ?

Is God in the sentence 3) different from God in sentence 4) ?

Is God in the sentence 8) different from God in the sentence 7) ?

Maybe this shows that Catholics are worshipping Three-gods as their practices are based on polytheism in many ways.
Catholics may be worshipping another god different from the Only True God whom the True Christian Believers are worshipping.

Mary was the mother for the 1/3 Godhead of Trinity, and moreover was the mother for only the humanity of the 1/3 Godhead, not for the divinity of God the Son, because the divinity was not born by Mary.
Mary never gave birth to Deity of Jesus Christ, but to the humanity.
Deity of Jesus Christ was not given birth to by Mary as Mary had no capability to produce any deity.
Deity or Divine nature cannot be born or produced by any human being.
Only the humanity of Jesus came out of Mary.

Noooobody in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God.
Paul calls her simply " woman" in Galatians 4:4
True Believers who refuse calling Mary as Mother of God will go to the place where Paul, Peter, John, went to, after death, which is called Kingdom of God.


Another silly logic by Maria worshippers is this.

"If you deny calling Mary as Mother of God, you are denying Jesus is God, denying the deity of Jesus, Anathema !"

If anyone deny calling James as Brother of God, then is she or he denying that Jesus is God, as Gal 1:19 says James is the Brother of Lord?

Another stupid ground for Theotokos came from Luke 1:43 as Elizabeth called Mary as Mother of my Lord. Did she say " Mother of God came since I believe that my Lord is God"?

When Sarah called Abraham as my Lord, did she say that as meaning my God? Read 1 Pet 3:6.

In conclusion, Calling Mary as Mother of God contradicts Trinity.
Usually when people call God without specifying Godheads, it means God the Father.
When Catholics and some other followers call Mother of God, they usually excuse that they are meaning Mother of God the Son, the second Godhead.
Do Catholics call Mary as Mother of God the Son ? Nope !
Why?
They are reluctant to call her in such way, because they want to give the impression that Mary is the Mother of God the Father !
They don't want to call Mary as the Mother of Jesus who humbled Himself to save the people.
They want to exalt Mary as goddess, who can produce gods as many as she wants to !

The situation is very similar to the case with Ashera or Astarte, Astaroth which people worshipped as the goddess producing any gods.

Catholics are decorating their goddess with Christian names and Christian titles.
They are not satisfied with Lord's Mother, Mother of Jesus.
They want to exalt Mary on top of God, as the word Mother has two meanings:
1) Producer, Creator of Child. Mary gave birth to God. God was produced by Mary. God could not exist if Mary didn't produce Him.

2) Pre-existence: No one could exist before his or her mother.
So, Catholics want to give the impression that Mary pre-existed before God.

How much devout goddess worshippers they are !

God hates hearing Mother of God ! as He had NOOOO Mother !

Before me, there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. ( Isaiah 43:10)

Eliyahu
10-06-2006, 10:29 AM
Here are two things that every Catholic knows and cannot deny.
1 The Hail Mary.
"Hail Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now."
That takes care of the first part of the phrase.

2. The Apostles Creed.
"...born of the virgin Mary..." That takes care of the second part. Yes Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ.
The second point we all agree with. The first point we have a problem with. Why both parts must be in one sentence, I don't know.
DHK

The problem with Hail Mary is that
RC prays to Mary, while Jesus asked us to pray to God ( Mt 6:6, John 15:16).
While Mary lived on this earth, she could not hear from millions of people.
Did she become so Omni-present to hear from 1.3 billion people, after death ?
This shows Catholic is based on a certain type of animism or ancestor worship, or ghost, or any other paganism.

16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. ( Jn 15:16)

DHK
10-06-2006, 01:16 PM
The problem with Hail Mary is that
RC prays to Mary, while Jesus asked us to pray to God ( Mt 6:6, John 15:16).
While Mary lived on this earth, she could not hear from millions of people.
Did she become so Omni-present to hear from 1.3 billion people, after death ?
This shows Catholic is based on a certain type of animism or ancestor worship, or ghost, or any other paganism.

You are quite right. The RCC treats Mary as god whether they deny it or not.
1. Mary cannot be omniscient (as you say) to hear all the prayers direcected to her by the one billion Catholics world wide.
2. The Ten Commandments specifies that worship is due only to God and him alone, thus Mary is god by virtue of accepting worship. Both John and Cornelius were rebuked for worshiping another rather than God.
3. Jesus never refused worship from any person because he is God.
4. Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in Scriptures. Mary is dead. The RCC's deny this. She is just as dead as any other person we hold a funeral for. Her body is still in the grave. The resurrection has not yet taken place. Praying to the dead is wrong. Praying to any other person but God is wroing.

Mary is treated and receives the same treatment as God.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
10-06-2006, 03:49 PM
You are quite right. The RCC treats Mary as god whether they deny it or not.DHKNo they do not.

1. Mary cannot be omniscient (as you say) to hear all the prayers direcected to her by the one billion Catholics world wide.How do you know that those in heaven can't hear prayers? How do you know that God has not given those in heaven the ability to hear? How do you know. No one for sure what gifts and rewards God has given. God does say that we would be like him when get to heaven.

2. The Ten Commandments specifies that worship is due only to God and him alone, thus Mary is god by virtue of accepting worship. Both John and Cornelius were rebuked for worshiping another rather than God. Asking those in heaven to pray for us is not worshipping them. What is worship in it's trueist sense? If you look at the biblical definition, it's called PROSTRATING oneself in homage.

3. Jesus never refused worship from any person because he is God. what does this have to do with the discussion?

4. Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in Scriptures. Mary is dead. The RCC's deny this. She is just as dead as any other person we hold a funeral for. Her body is still in the grave. The resurrection has not yet taken place. Praying to the dead is wrong. Praying to any other person but God is wroing. You're starting to sound like the SDAs now. They don't believe anyone is in heaven except God, Angels, Enoch, Elijah, and possibly Moses. Do you also believe the soul and body are inseparable and the soul is just asleep drifting around whereever the body is? Actually, tradition with a little t says that doubting thomas asked to see the body of Mary after her death, they opened the tomb and found it empty. Since the early church was hung up on relics of dead saints, don't you think there would be a church somewhere that holds her bones, just like the churches have possess the bones of Peter, Paul, and other of noteworthy righteousnes?

Mary is treated and receives the same treatment as God. No she is not.

The RCC, EOC, and others of like mind don't define praying as worshipping.

How do you worship God? What is considered worship?

Inquiring Mind
10-06-2006, 03:57 PM
If you really want to know who actually worships God in it's correct form, look to the Islamist.

Is singing a hymn worshipping God? No. It's not part of the definition.

G4352 προσκυνέω proskuneō pros-koo-neh'-o
From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): - worship

I really don't see praying as part of the definition of worship, do you?

When you met your wife to be, did you fawn over her? Did you crouch before her? Did you rever her? Did you adore her? If you ask her, she would more than likely say you did.

You might just have worshipped her as a God then.

I know a lot of Christians that worship their boss in the form of butt-kissing and brown-nosing which follows this: {meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand }

DHK
10-06-2006, 05:10 PM
No they do not. As I said: "whether they deny it or not." :)
How do you know that those in heaven can't hear prayers? How do you know that God has not given those in heaven the ability to hear? How do you know. No one for sure what gifts and rewards God has given. God does say that we would be like him when get to heaven. First and foremost because the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. I do not look to tradition, whether RCC or otherwise to shape my beliefs.
1. How do you know that those in heaven can't hear prayers?
Even if they could they can't do anything about it. Only God can answer prayer. Praying to any creature other than God alone is idolatry. Everytime Israel went praying to other gods, like Baal, it was idolatry. The same holds true for Mary and other so-called saints. Sinners can't answer prayers. Mary and all others in heaven are sinners, but sinners who have been saved by the grace of God. They are also dead. Their bodies remain in the grave to this day. Only Christ has risen from the dead. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the resurrection is yet to come? Would you care to go to a cemetary and start digging up graves and tell me what you would find? Do you think that you would find the bodies of dead people? They are dead precisely because the resurrection has not taken place.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--Even the Bible defines it as dead.
It is against Scripture to pray to the dead. It is called necromancy. It is sin.
The only one that can hear prayer and do anything about it is God.
Why do you think that God commands you to confess your sin to Him before He will answer prayer. What good would it do to confess it to another spirit. That is dabbling with the occult.

2. How do you know that God has not given others the ability to others to hear.
God will not share his glory with another. Worship God and Him alone. Prayer is worship. Praying to anyone else is sin. By praying to another you are worshiping and God does not allow you or any other to worship another. We worship God, not his creation.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

3. "God says that we shall be like him."
What is the context.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

We shall see him as he is.
The context is his body. We shall be like him in that we shall have a body like unto his. It is not speaking of the power that God has. In this you are deceived.
Asking those in heaven to pray for us is not worshipping them. What is worship in it's trueist sense? If you look at the biblical definition, it's called PROSTRATING oneself in homage. That is only one small part of worship. Have you ever been to a "worship service" and have seen what is involved in what some believe to be worship?
Worship: How do dictionaries define the word:
Worship:
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe –ship

reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/worship
PRAYER
Is the offering of the emotions and desires of the soul to God, in the name and through the mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is the communion of the heart with God through the aid of the Holy Spirit, and is to the Christian the very life of the soul. Without this filial spirit, no one can be a Christian, Job 21:15; Ps 10:4.
reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
He who lives without it thereby reveals the atheism of his heart. God requires all men thus to worship him, Eze 36:37; Mt 7:1-11; Php 4:6; 1Ti 2:1-3; Jas 1:5; and for neglecting this duty there can be no sufficient excuse. (American Tract Society Dictionary) Prayer is worship. Every time one prays to Mary he or she is worshiping her, worship that due only to God.

what does this have to do with the discussion? Everything. Only God deserves worship. Christ was showing his divinity by accepting prayer and/or worship. No other person could do that.
You're starting to sound like the SDAs now. They don't believe anyone is in heaven except God, Angels, Enoch, Elijah, and possibly Moses. Do you also believe the soul and body are inseparable and the soul is just asleep drifting around whereever the body is? To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. My beliefs differ from the SDA. But one's spirit is present with the Lord, not their body. For the resurrection has not taken place. Therefore they are still considered dead.
Actually, tradition with a little t says that doubting thomas asked to see the body of Mary after her death, they opened the tomb and found it empty. Since the early church was hung up on relics of dead saints, don't you think there would be a church somewhere that holds her bones, just like the churches have possess the bones of Peter, Paul, and other of noteworthy righteousnes? As I said before I don't base my doctrine on tradition, fables, myth, legend or any other such thing. My beliefs are grounded in the Word of God, and therein will I take my stand. There is no such thing as the Assumption of Mary. Mary is dead. You may not be able to find her tomb. So what! Her body has no doubt rotted by now. That makes no difference to me. You pray to her; you commit idolatry. It would be wise for you to study the Ten Commandments once again.

Exodus 20:2-5 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

No she is not.

The RCC, EOC, and others of like mind don't define praying as worshipping.

How do you worship God? What is considered worship? Yes she is treated as God, and worshiped as God.
I have already defined worship for you.
Let me define God. There are two sets of attributes in defining God. One is metaphysical, and the other set is moral.

The metaphysical attributes of God is what sets God apart from man. No man can attain to these attributes. What are they?
1. God is self-existent. He is not dependent on any one or anything. John 1:4 sayas "In him was life." All life emanates from God. He is self-existent.

2. He is eternal. God alone is eternal. He existed before all things and will exist throughout all eternity. Only God possesses this attribute.

3. He is omniscient (all-knowing). If you remember Scripture:
Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him. Why? He is all-knowing.
When he healed the man in the synagogue, he said to the Pharisees: "Why reason in your hearts..." How did he know what was in their hearts? He is all-knowing.

4. He is omnipotent (all powerful). God can do anything that is not contrary to his nature. For example he cannot lie for that would be contrary to his nature to do so. He demonstrated that through his works. He calmed the sea, walked on water, raised the dead, etc.

5. He is omnipresent (everywhere at once). Mary cannot be everywhere and thus cannot hear the prayers of one billion Catholics world wide. Only God is omnipresent. This is where Catholics attribute Godhood to Mary. Omnipresence belongs to God alone.
John 3:13 Christ talking to Nicodemus says that he is in Heaven while speaking to Nicodemus at the same time. In the Great Commission (Mat.28:20) He promises to be with us to the end of the world. He will be everywhere with every believer in every age until the end of the world. He is omnipresent.

There is another class of attributes called moral attributes: holy, truth, love, righteous, etc. God is perfect in all these. Man can only attain them in part. But in the first group (metaphysical attributes), man cannot attain at all. Those attributes belong to God alone. To attribute any of those qualities to man (or Mary) is blasphemy. And yet the RCC does that to Mary. They blasphemously make Mary into a god.
DHK

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 09:26 AM
First and foremost because the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. I do not look to tradition, whether RCC or otherwise to shape my beliefs. Only problem is that no where in the Bible does it say that it is the final authority.


1. How do you know that those in heaven can't hear prayers? Even if they could they can't do anything about it. They can't? They can added our petitions to their own. The prayers of the righteous accomplish much. Revelations says the prayers of the saints are offered up with incense. Would you deny that the saints in heaven are praying for us that are down here?

Only God can answer prayer. Praying to any creature other than God alone is idolatry. It's still a matter on the definition of worship

Everytime Israel went praying to other gods, like Baal, it was idolatry. I would read the scriptures again. Worship is used instead of praying.

The same holds true for Mary and other so-called saints. Sinners can't answer prayers. Mary and all others in heaven are sinners, but sinners who have been saved by the grace of God. They are also dead. Their bodies remain in the grave to this day. Only Christ has risen from the dead. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the resurrection is yet to come? Would you care to go to a cemetary and start digging up graves and tell me what you would find? Do you think that you would find the bodies of dead people? They are dead precisely because the resurrection has not taken place. SDA mentality again. The body dies and is left behind. The soul goes to hell or heaven. The final resurrection is just the reconstruction of the physical body that will be reunited with the Soul.

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 09:36 AM
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--Even the Bible defines it as dead.
It is against Scripture to pray to the dead. It is called necromancy. It is sin.
The only one that can hear prayer and do anything about it is God.
Why do you think that God commands you to confess your sin to Him before He will answer prayer. What good would it do to confess it to another spirit. That is dabbling with the occult. Yes the body is dead. The Soul is very much alive, either suffering in hell or enjoying the prescense of God in heaven.

The Bible only condemns CONSULTING mediums for contacting the dead. No one is consulting the dead when they are being beseeched to pray for us.

Actually if we do a search on the word confess, the results are interesting:

Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luk 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

Joh 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

Joh 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

Joh 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

Act 19:18 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Rom 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1Ti 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE FIND TO WHOM WE ARE TO CONFESS

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.THIS ONE MIGHT BE CLOSE, BUT YOU HAVE TO INSERT EITHER JESUS OR GOD. BUT SINCE THIS FOLLOWS AFTER JAMES' WRITING BOTH PHYSICALLY AND CHRONOLOGICALLY, THEN IT COULD ONLY MEAN TO ONE ANOTHER.

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 10:27 AM
4. He is omnipotent (all powerful). God can do anything that is not contrary to his nature. For example he cannot lie for that would be contrary to his nature to do so. He demonstrated that through his works. He calmed the sea, walked on water, raised the dead, etc. That's a red herring. God can't lie? You might as well say "God can't kill" Contrary to his nature? You claim to know the nature of God? God is God. If God lies, he does so for his own reasons. It follows the axiom of "Do what I say and not as I do". God is not answerable to us. RED HERRING

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 11:00 AM
That is only one small part of worship. Have you ever been to a "worship service" and have seen what is involved in what some believe to be worship?
Worship: How do dictionaries define the word:

Worship:
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe –ship

reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence You had resort to man-made definitions of worship. TRADITIONS OF MAN! I used the Greek from Strongs concordance.

Lets look at it again:

G4352 προσκυνέω proskuneō pros-koo-neh'-o
From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): - worship.

You can either use the modern traditions of men or you can you the original definition that God inspired man with.

But if you want to adhere to the modern traditions of men, let us do so, but fully.

synonym
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad.
2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.

Synomyms for Worship: admire, adore, adulate, bow down, canonize, celebrate, chant, deify, dote on, esteem, exalt, extol, glorify, idolize, laud, love, magnify, praise, pray to, respect, revere, reverence, sanctify, sing, venerate

Are everyone of those regulated to ONLY GOD? How do you act around your boss at work? How do you act around your own Pastor? I guess you can't love your wife. I guess you can't celebrate her birthday or anniversary. I guess you must refuse to show respect to your boss and your pastor.

Roget's list these first:

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: worship
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: honoring
Synonyms: adoration, adulation, awe, beatification, benediction, chapel, church service, deification, devotion, exaltation, genuflection, glorification, glory, homage, honor, idolatry, idolization, invocation, laudation, love, offering, praise, prayer, prostration, regard, respect, reverence, rite, ritual, service, supplication, veneration, vespers
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: worship
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: honor
Synonyms: admire, adore, adulate, bow down, canonize, celebrate, chant, deify, dote on, esteem, exalt, extol, glorify, idolize, laud, love, magnify, praise, pray to, respect, revere, reverence, sanctify, sing, venerate
Antonyms: dishonor, disrespect, hate
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 11:07 AM
Synomym of Pray:

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: pray
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: plead
Synonyms: adjure, appeal, ask, beseech, brace, commune with, crave, cry for, entreat, implore, importune, invocate, invoke, petition, recite, request, say, solicit, sue, supplicate, urge
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: appeal
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: request
Synonyms: address, adjure, advance, apply, ask, beg, beseech, bid, call, call upon, claim, contest, crave, demand, entreat, hit on, implore, importune, petition, plead, pray, propose, proposition, question, refer, require, resort to, solicit, strike, submit, sue, supplicate, urge
Antonyms: deny, disclaim, refuse, revoke
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

I believe the RCC and EOC and others utilize the definition of ASKING, BESEECHING.

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 11:42 AM
5. He is omnipresent (everywhere at once). Mary cannot be everywhere and thus cannot hear the prayers of one billion Catholics world wide. Only God is omnipresent. This is where Catholics attribute Godhood to Mary. Omnipresence belongs to God alone.
John 3:13 Christ talking to Nicodemus says that he is in Heaven while speaking to Nicodemus at the same time. In the Great Commission (Mat.28:20) He promises to be with us to the end of the world. He will be everywhere with every believer in every age until the end of the world. He is omnipresent. You've taken that verse out of context.

Is God omnipresent? Atheist Arguemnet: Atheists would say no. If God was truely omnipresent, he would not need angels to do his bidding. He would do it himself. He would not need angels to look over and protect angels: Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. By this verse, we could say that angels are omnipresent. They are able to be a guardian of a child and still see the face of God. Here is a footnote on this verse: 9 [10] Their angels in heaven . . . my heavenly Father: for the Jewish belief in angels as guardians of nations and individuals, see Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Tobit 5:4-7; 1QH 5:20-22; as intercessors who present the prayers of human beings to God, see Tobit 13:12, 15. The high worth of the little ones is indicated by their being represented before God by these heavenly beings.

As for those in heaven? Read Luke 20:
34 And Jesus said to them, The sons of this world are married and have wives;
35 But those to whom is given the reward of the world to come, and to come back from the dead, have no wives, and are not married;
36 And death has no more power over them, for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being of those who will come back from the dead. THOSE THAT DO NOT COME BACK FROM THE DEAD ARE IN HELL.
37 But even Moses made it clear that the dead come back to life, saying, in the story of the burning thorn-tree, The Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Inquiring Mind
10-07-2006, 11:46 AM
3. He is omniscient (all-knowing). If you remember Scripture:
Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him. Why? He is all-knowing.
When he healed the man in the synagogue, he said to the Pharisees: "Why reason in your hearts..." How did he know what was in their hearts? He is all-knowing.bUT HE HAS HIS LIMITATIONS, HE DOES NOT KNOW WHEN HIS FATHER WILL SEND HIM BACK TO US. THAT IS ONLY KNOWN TO GOD THE FATHER.

DHK
10-07-2006, 02:20 PM
You've taken that verse out of context.
Is God omnipresent?
You question the omnipresence of God.
God can't lie? You might as well say "God can't kill" Contrary to his nature? You claim to know the nature of God? God is God. If God lies, he does so for his own reasons.
You say that God is a sinful God.

DHK says:
"1. Mary cannot be omniscient (as you say) to hear all the prayers direcected to her by the one billion Catholics world wide."
Inquiring Mind says:
"How do you know that those in heaven can't hear prayers? "
You deny that God alone is omniscient.

In effect you deny the omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence of God. I feel sorry for the puppet god that you serve. He is certainly not the God of the Bible.
DHK

Claudia_T
10-07-2006, 03:39 PM
Inquiring Mind:

I noticed you quote people and dont tell who you are quoting from.

Eliyahu
10-07-2006, 09:10 PM
Hi Claudia,
Good to see you here again.
Keep up the good posts in the Lord.

Eliyahu
10-07-2006, 09:36 PM
We are approaching the end of the thread.
Despite all the good explanations against goddess worship, Veneration of Mary as Queen of Heaven which was severely condemned in the Bible ( Jeremiah 44), people will continue to exalt the dead woman Mary which is the decoration and beatification of the goddess worship in the form of Christianity, and some of them are here on this board, on this thread.
It is a great pity that such people will go to their destination, where the most idol worshippers go eventually.

Mary worship doesn't end by itself, but is connected with all the paganism, unbelief, disobedience, and therefore it is not strange if we notice such people are doing or claiming, idol worship, goddess worship, papacy, infant baptism, indulgence business, inquisition, killing Christian believers, compulsory celibacy, weekly mass where priests ask God for the forgiveness repeatedly without bringing the Gospel that such sins were forgiven already at the Cross, Confession to the priests ( not to God), Clergy system while Bible doesn't separate between clergy and laypeople,
prayer to the dead, prayer for the dead, purgatory while the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise directly, Limbo ( sometimes Pope can abolish it ! Why doesn't he abolish the Hell as well ?), etc., etc.

We'd better remember the OP once again. Non-canonized books are quite important to support such paganism. As the whole thoughts and literatures by human beings are connected with paganism, as long as they are not the Words of God, any human literature ( not the Word of God) will be useful to support Catholic Paganism.
Early Christians accepted the Bible which is the Old Testament today, and the list of such Bible didn't include the Apocrypha.
This was confirmed by Josephus since he mentioned 22 books for Bible.
In ancient times, minor prophets were mentioned 12 prophets which was considered as one book. Samuel I, II were considered as one book, Kings I,II were considered as one book, Chronicles I, II were as one book, Nehemiah and Ezra were consided as one book.
There was no Apocrypha mentioned by Josephus.
This means that the Bible canon was excluding Apocrypha even before the Council of Jamnea around 90 AD. and the Jamneah Council just confirmed what was believed among the people and among the Rabbis.

The criteria would have been the same as we know today.
1) The writers of Apocrypha didn't claim that they received the instruction from God that they should write such letters or writings.
They never claimed that the words were received from God.
2) They were not written in the language of then God's people, which was Hebrew.
3) Jesus never quoted any of Apocrypha
4) Disciples never quoted them ( even though some argue against this especially on Jude)
5) They teach immoral things like telling lies, assassination, suicide, prayer to the dead, etc.
6) The contents disagree sometimes.
7) They were never used in the Jewish meetings or services.
8) The style of the AP were different from other Bible which are the style of reporting and witnessing, and they are like story telling like fables or history books.

The reason why Catholic do not include Esdras 3 and 4 among Apocrypha in their bible is because they condemn Idolatry and goddess worship severely and therefore RC omit them for their convenience.

Calling Mary as Mother of God is not found in the Bible anywhere.
Calling Mary as Mother of God while they don't believe Mary is Mother of God the Father excludes God the Father from the Godheads and from Deity. It is an insult to God and therefore God hates it!
God hates the people who call Mary as Mother of God. Anathema !!!

Gold Dragon
10-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Inquiring Mind:

I noticed you quote people and dont tell who you are quoting from.

I don't think he's discovered the quote button beneath posts that automatically does this for you.

DHK
10-12-2006, 03:05 AM
bUT HE HAS HIS LIMITATIONS, HE DOES NOT KNOW WHEN HIS FATHER WILL SEND HIM BACK TO US. THAT IS ONLY KNOWN TO GOD THE FATHER.
Christ (who is God) has no limitations. Now that He is in heaven He certainly knows the exact time of his return. Only when he was on his earth did he voluntarily accept to keep that information in his father's hand. He came to this earth to do the will of His Father. He was perfect man and perfect God at the same time. There is nothing that can be taken away from His deity. He knows all, has power over all, is present everywhre. These attributes Mary can never attain to. She is not a god. She is not to be worshiped as the Catholics do.
DHK

Eliyahu
10-12-2006, 09:15 AM
Christ (who is God) has no limitations. Now that He is in heaven He certainly knows the exact time of his return. Only when he was on his earth did he voluntarily accept to keep that information in his father's hand. He came to this earth to do the will of His Father. He was perfect man and perfect God at the same time. There is nothing that can be taken away from His deity. He knows all, has power over all, is present everywhre. These attributes Mary can never attain to. She is not a god. She is not to be worshiped as the Catholics do.
DHK

Good interpretation, I think.
What Catholic often describe about Jesus Christ is Jesus born of Mary, and they have little understanding about the Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ, the Forthcoming Messiah, who will come soon.
I don't expect Jesus Christ will have the summit meeting with the Pope at that time, instead the Pope may be trodden down undert His feet or thrown away to the lake of fire!

Inquiring Mind
10-12-2006, 09:33 AM
Plymouth Brethren?

Subjugators of women?

Keep them silent?

Barefoot and pregnant as well?

I visited a churc in Lousiana where the pughs were on different levels. The men sat elevated above women and children. Signifying their superiority over woman and child.

sounds cultish.


the primary importance of the weekly communion service
the communion is not led or administered by a single individual
the freedom and the responsibility for men to vocally participate in services
the silence of women (whose heads must be covered during meetings of the local church) in most Plymouth Brethren assemblies
the importance of preaching the gospel
the importance of generous giving
the rejection of a separation of believers into clergy and laity classes
the plurality of leadership (usually as elders and deacons) as opposed to an ordained, professional clergy class. Exclusives do not appoint elders or deacons

Inquiring Mind
10-12-2006, 10:01 AM
We'd better remember the OP once again. Non-canonized books are quite important to support such paganism. As the whole thoughts and literatures by human beings are connected with paganism, as long as they are not the Words of God, any human literature ( not the Word of God) will be useful to support Catholic Paganism.
Early Christians accepted the Bible which is the Old Testament today, and the list of such Bible didn't include the Apocrypha.
This was confirmed by Josephus since he mentioned 22 books for Bible.
In ancient times, minor prophets were mentioned 12 prophets which was considered as one book. Samuel I, II were considered as one book, Kings I,II were considered as one book, Chronicles I, II were as one book, Nehemiah and Ezra were consided as one book.
There was no Apocrypha mentioned by Josephus.
This means that the Bible canon was excluding Apocrypha even before the Council of Jamnea around 90 AD. and the Jamneah Council just confirmed what was believed among the people and among the Rabbis.

Josephus was never a Christian and his works are after the council of Jamnia. So of course he might not mention them. He never mentioned the writings of the New Testament either. I just love your selective quoting!

Let us review the Judgements of the council of Jamnia:

1. JESUS IS NOT THE PROMISED MESSIAH. JESUS IS NOT GOD. JESUS WAS A HERETIC.

2. Established the distinction between Jews and Heretics(us christians).

3. Christians were banned from entering synogogues.

4. A CURSE OF CHRISTIANS WERE ADDED TO THEIR DAILY PRAYERS.

5. Established 4 rules for inspired scripture as noted below:

A: Scripture had to conform to the Torah (first five books)

B: Scripture had to written in Hebrew.

C: Scripture had to be written in Palenstine.

D: Scripture had to be written before 400 BC.


All four rules had to be met. So they denounce the deuterocanocals and the BOOKS THAT WOULD BECOME THE NEW TESTAMENT.

You accept one-half of 1 of the Five Judgements.

HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING FACETS ABOUT JOSEPHUS:

Josephus (c. A.D. 37 – c. 100), who became known, in his capacity as a Roman citizen, as Flavius Josephus[1], was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN.


Josephus, who introduced himself in Greek as "Joseph, son of Matthias, an ethnic Hebrew, a priest from Jerusalem" [2], fought the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 as a Jewish military leader in Galilee. After the Jewish garrison of Yodfat was taken under siege, the Romans invaded, killed thousands, and the remaining survivors who had managed to elude the forces committed suicide.

WHAT A COWARD!


However, in circumstances that are somewhat unclear (see also Josephus problem), Josephus surrendered to the Roman forces invading Galilee in July 67. He became a prisoner and provided the Romans with intelligence on the ongoing revolt.

HE WAS A TRAITOR TO GOD!


In 71 he arrived in Rome in the entourage of Titus, becoming a Roman citizen and Flavian client (hence he is often referred to as Flavius Josephus - see below). In addition to Roman citizenship he was granted accommodation in Vespasian's former home, land in conquered Judea, and a decent, if not extravagant, pension. It was while in Rome, and under Flavian patronage, that Josephus wrote all of his known works.

HE WAS REWARDED FOR HIS TREASON AGAINST GOD!


Although he only ever calls himself "Josephus", he appears to have taken the Roman nomen Flavius and praenomen Titus from his patrons [3]. This was standard for new citizens.


HE EVEN TOOK ON PAGAN ROMAN NAMES!

Around 70, Josephus divorced his first wife and married a Jewish woman from Alexandria by whom he had two children: a son Flavius Hyrcanus and a second child, about whom nothing is known. Around 75, he again divorced and, by a third marriage, produced two more sons, Flavius Justus and Simonides Agrippa.

ADULTERER!


Josephus's life is beset with ambiguity. For his critics, he never satisfactorily explained his actions during the Jewish war — why he failed to commit suicide in Galilee in 67 with some of his compatriots, and why, after his capture, he cooperated with the Roman invaders. Hence, some have viewed Josephus as a traitor and informer and questioned his credibility as a historian — dismissing his works as Roman propaganda or as a personal apologetic, aimed at rehabilitating his reputation in history.

TRYING TO COVER HIS TRACTS JUST LIKE KING GEORGE BUSH!


The works of Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War. They are also important literary source for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and post-Second Temple Judaism. Josephan scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century became focused on Josephus' relationship to the sect of the Pharisees. He was consistently portrayed as a member of the sect, but nevertheless viewed as a villanous traitor to his own nation - a view which became known in Josephan studies as the classical conception. In the mid 20th century, this view was challenged by a new generation of scholars who formulated the modern conception of Josephus, still considering him a Pharisee but restoring his reputation in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. Recent scholarship since 1990 has sought to move scholarly perceptions forward by demonstrating that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became part of the Temple establishment as a matter of deference and not willing association (Cf. Steve Mason, Todd Beall, and Ernst Gerlach).

Inquiring Mind
10-12-2006, 10:11 AM
The criteria would have been the same as we know today.
1) The writers of Apocrypha didn't claim that they received the instruction from God that they should write such letters or writings. They never claimed that the words were received from God.NEITHER DID THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT BEING THE REVELATION OF JOHN. ALSO THERE ARE SEVERAL BOOKS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THAT DON'T MAKE THIS EITHER.
2) They were not written in the language of then God's people, which was Hebrew.NEITHER WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT. THEN LANGUAGE OF GOD'S PEOPLE WAS NOT HEBREW AFTER 400 BC. HEBREW BECAME LOST AND ARAMAIC TOOK OVER WITH GREEK AS THE SECOND LANGAUGE. SO THAT IS A RED HERRRING.
3) Jesus never quoted any of ApocryphaYES HE DID, YOU JUST FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGED IT.
4) Disciples never quoted them ( even though some argue against this especially on Jude)YES THEY DID, YOU JUST FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
5) They teach immoral things like telling lies, assassination, suicide, prayer to the dead, etc.I HAVE NOT READ ANY OF THEM TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS.
6) The contents disagree sometimes.NOT TRUE.
7) They were never used in the Jewish meetings or services.HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
8) The style of the AP were different from other Bible which are the style of reporting and witnessing, and they are like story telling like fables or history books. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SCHOLARS AND THEOLOGIANS THAT MAKE THE SAME CLAIM ABOUT JOB AND JONAH AND SOMETIMES EZEKIEL. FROM AN ATHIEST STANDPOINT, GENESIS AND EXODUS SOUNDS LIKE STORY TELLING LIKE FABLES OR HISTORY BOOKS AS WELL.

Eliyahu
10-12-2006, 05:19 PM
Plymouth Brethren?[quote]
We don't call ourseleves Plymouth Brethren but the people call us so.
We call ourselves as Believers in Jesus Christ because Bible denies any denomination, even the denomination Catholic etc.


[quote]Subjugators of women?

Keep them silent? Nope ! we just follow what is taught by the Bible. Are you claiming Paul was a subjugator of women ?

Read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Barefoot and pregnant as well? Groundless accusation. Where did you find such church where women go on barefoot? YOu are just revealing you are the groundless false accuser of the true believers!

I visited a churc in Lousiana where the pughs were on different levels. The men sat elevated above women and children. Signifying their superiority over woman and child.
There is no differentiation like that ! It's another groundless accusation.

sounds cultish. you sound very much cultish accuser !


the primary importance of the weekly communion service
the communion is not led or administered by a single individual
the freedom and the responsibility for men to vocally participate in services
the silence of women (whose heads must be covered during meetings of the local church) in most Plymouth Brethren assemblies
the importance of preaching the gospel
the importance of generous giving
the rejection of a separation of believers into clergy and laity classes
the plurality of leadership (usually as elders and deacons) as opposed to an ordained, professional clergy class. Exclusives do not appoint elders or deacons

Are the following Bible Cultish ?

1 Cor 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: forit is a shame for women to speak in the church

1 Cor 11:1-16
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


In many countries, Roman Catholics have their women head covered with head coverings during the service. Do you think they are wrong as well ?

As for the priesthood of the church, all bornagain believers are the priests.
There is no distinction between laypeople and clergy at all in the Bible, after the resurrection of Jesus.
Read 1 Pet 2:5-9. All born-again believers ( including women) are the Priests offering the true service based on what Jesus has done already at the Cross.
Clergy system is absolutely wrong!

As for the Leadership, always the leaders of the churches appear in plural, except the cases where Bible explains the definition of Elders or the Bishops or the qualification of Bishop ( Overseers) Read Phil 1:1, Acts 20:17-30, 1 Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9

If you visit the true Assemblies, so-called Plymouth Brethren, you will find them as the exact followers of the Early Church.

There are many famous PB's during the short period of its service.

- John Nelson Darby who started the movement around 1827, was a genius judge, expected to become a successful judge at the supreme court, but gave up all the secular life and devoted for the Lord, lived as a bachelor even though he had a lovely sister-in the Lord to marrry.
translated Bible from original languages into English, French, German for OT and NT. into Italian for NT.

- George Mueller : Father of Orphans.
Famous for his 50,000 prayers which receieved the answers from God

- CH McINtosh : famous for Commentary on Pentateuch
- David Livingstone - Missionary to Africa
- Hudson Taylor - Inland China Missionary, influenced Watchman Nee
- Robert Anderson - famous for apologetics on Daniel's 70 weeks, proven the exactness of 69 weeks from the construction of Jerusalem until the crucifixion of Jesus, etc.
- Harry Ironside - who mainly worked with Brethren though he preached at Moody's memorial church during his later times.
- Joseph Scrivener - famous for his Hymn song " What a friend we have in Jesus ! " who lived near Toronto, at Port Hope along with poor people.
- James Deck - Hymn song writer for many worship songs
- Robert Chapman - Lawyer and advocator for the poor people.
who lieved 100 years age, saying " there are many people who claim they believe in Jesus, but a few who are really born again, I made it my motto that I preach Jesus Chrst by living the life of Jesus Christ"

There are not so many Plymouth Brethren on the world today, but they do a lot of contribution in many fields, including Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges who translated New King James Version, and many Scientists in Creation Truth, many evangelists in Africa, EH Broadbent famous for Church History - "Pilgrim Church" ( you can see a glimpse of it ; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-013.HTM)
There are hundreds of famous believers who have been recognized with their faith and contributions whose names I cannot afford to ilustrate on this board all.

There are many Hymns songs written by PB's, some may be even in your hymn book

Who are you condemning the servants of the Lord without knowing them properly ?

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. ( Romans 14:10)

Eliyahu
10-12-2006, 06:01 PM
Josephus was never a Christian and his works are after the council of Jamnia. So of course he might not mention them. He never mentioned the writings of the New Testament either. I just love your selective quoting!

Let us review the Judgements of the council of Jamnia:

1. JESUS IS NOT THE PROMISED MESSIAH. JESUS IS NOT GOD. JESUS WAS A HERETIC.

2. Established the distinction between Jews and Heretics(us christians).

3. Christians were banned from entering synogogues.

4. A CURSE OF CHRISTIANS WERE ADDED TO THEIR DAILY PRAYERS.

5. Established 4 rules for inspired scripture as noted below:

A: Scripture had to conform to the Torah (first five books)

B: Scripture had to written in Hebrew.

C: Scripture had to be written in Palenstine.

D: Scripture had to be written before 400 BC.


All four rules had to be met. So they denounce the deuterocanocals and the BOOKS THAT WOULD BECOME THE NEW TESTAMENT.


HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. .

WHAT A COWARD!

HE WAS A TRAITOR TO GOD!

HE WAS REWARDED FOR HIS TREASON AGAINST GOD!

HE EVEN TOOK ON PAGAN ROMAN NAMES!
ADULTERER!

TRYING TO COVER HIS TRACTS JUST LIKE KING GEORGE BUSH!

(Cf. Steve Mason, Todd Beall, and Ernst Gerlach).

I condone neither Josephus nor Jamnea Council.
Jamnea Council just confirmed what the Jewish Believers before Jesus Christ' time believed and practiced.
The reason why I mentioned the Jamnea council is because it shows the such stance. Do you believe that the Jamnea Council invented a bew criteria which didn't exist before? They just simply acknowledged what was believed before.
The people who killed Jesus had held the Bible(OT), and therefore those Bible were wrong ? Those people who killed Jesus must have had a certain criteria for the Bible canon, were the criteria wrong because they killed Jesus ?

As for Josephus, I have read some books surrounding Intra-testamental period. He or his advocator may have some excuses that he also tried to commit suicide, but failed, etc or he tried to persuade his people to abandon the fight because he saw no hope of victory of survival there, in order to save his people. He was not a believer, but testified about the Bible canon without any religious prejudice. He was neither Catholic nor Protestant, neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but a historian. We sometimes rely on the secular historian when there is a dispute among the religious group. Of course what we trust finally is the Bible and we would not yield to any if the claim contradict Bible.
Josephus must have lived the terrible life during the war and the turmoil, and we can hardly judge the personal life of others without knowing the details and the actual aspects. Divorce must be a grievous sin but the human life often involves it and therefore the Bible mentioned the biblical solutions which would be better than the worst cases, thru what Moses said and what Paul said in 1 Cor 7, especially 7:15.

Again I don't rely on his writings as any final authority or any significant reference but as a neutral record. Even the persucutors of Roman empire's record about Tiberius or Pilate the governor can be used to verify what Luke said. Record on Haesmonian Kingdom and King Herod's can be used to verify some of the Biblical events.

I don't think Josephus mentioned 22 Bibles in Old Testaments while the actual belief among the believers were like 30 including Apocrypha. There could be little disagreements about the number of books in the Bible at that time, than we have it between Catholics and Protestants today.
Addition of Apocrypha must have occurred after around 313 AD, after Catholic tried to justify all its paganism.
Catholic excluded the 3,4th Esdras conveniently for their idolatry while they include Macc 1,2 and other AP's, because those Esdras condemn the Idol worship and paganism.

So, your claim is rejected.

Eliyahu
10-12-2006, 06:09 PM
NEITHER DID THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT BEING THE REVELATION OF JOHN. ALSO THERE ARE SEVERAL BOOKS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THAT DON'T MAKE THIS EITHER.
NEITHER WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT. THEN LANGUAGE OF GOD'S PEOPLE WAS NOT HEBREW AFTER 400 BC. HEBREW BECAME LOST AND ARAMAIC TOOK OVER WITH GREEK AS THE SECOND LANGAUGE. SO THAT IS A RED HERRRING.
YES HE DID, YOU JUST FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGED IT.
YES THEY DID, YOU JUST FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
I HAVE NOT READ ANY OF THEM TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS.
NOT TRUE.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SCHOLARS AND THEOLOGIANS THAT MAKE THE SAME CLAIM ABOUT JOB AND JONAH AND SOMETIMES EZEKIEL. FROM AN ATHIEST STANDPOINT, GENESIS AND EXODUS SOUNDS LIKE STORY TELLING LIKE FABLES OR HISTORY BOOKS AS WELL.

1. If you read the Bible books for each, you can clearly confirm that they claim the revelation by Holy Spirit or Words from God.

2. Hebrew lange was the language of the then God's people, while the God's people have been diversified into thousands of nations in NT period.
Greek was the representative language of gentiles at that time.

Isaiah said " Jehovah said..." Jeremiah said " Jehovah said.."..

If you read the bible and AP, we can clearly tell the difference.

Inquiring Mind
10-16-2006, 11:43 AM
I condone neither Josephus nor Jamnea Council.Good and rightfully so.

Jamnea Council just confirmed what the Jewish Believers before Jesus Christ' time believed and practiced.Not according to select verses in the new testament and not according to the writings of the early church fiathers

The reason why I mentioned the Jamnea council is because it shows the such stance. Their stance was anti-christian. Their 5 judgements prove that.

Do you believe that the Jamnea Council invented a bew criteria which didn't exist before? Yes!

They just simply acknowledged what was believed before.Do you have any proof of that? The LXX contained all that was recognized as inspired by the Greek speaking Jewish nation.

The people who killed Jesus had held the Bible(OT), and therefore those Bible were wrong ? Those people who killed Jesus must have had a certain criteria for the Bible canon, were the criteria wrong because they killed Jesus ?

They killed Jesus.
They denied that he was the Messiah.
They denied the writings that would eventually become the New Testament.

Inquiring Mind
10-16-2006, 12:14 PM
1. If you read the Bible books for each, you can clearly confirm that they claim the revelation by Holy Spirit or Words from God. There are several in the Old Testament that don't claim

2. Hebrew lange was the language of the then God's people, while the God's people have been diversified into thousands of nations in NT period.
Greek was the representative language of gentiles at that time.Hebrew was. It was the representative language of the Jews as well, since they lost use of the Hebrew, it fell away just as the Latin did. As English replaced Latin, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as native language with Greek being the second language. It's the same as our Hispanic community now. They speak in Spanish to each other, but when writing and conversing with the rest of the world, it is English.

Isaiah said " Jehovah said..." Jeremiah said " Jehovah said.."..

If you read the bible and AP, we can clearly tell the difference.What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following is an inspired book," this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

These tests failing, most Fundamentalists fall back on the notion that "the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired," an exercise in subjectivism akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible?, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical organization "Radio Bible Class," lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is, "Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment."

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

El_Guero
10-16-2006, 01:14 PM
Good posts!

xx - get a discipler!

:thumbs:

Protestant churches generally (the Episcopal Church is an exception) use only the Old Testament books as listed by the rabbis gathered at Jamnia ca. 90 AD. This council was called by Jewish leaders to clarify a list of canonical writings in order to defend Judaism against the claims of Christianity.

One can certainly affirm divine leadership for the decision to limit the Old Testament to those books, as the extracanonical books add nothing doctrinally to them, and in some cases are a bit on the fanciful side.


Yes, the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint did indeed include books that are not Scripture, but no the earliest leaders of the church did not accept them as Scripture.

When in discussions involving Catholics or that could involve Catholics, I sometimes use the old Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for Scripture. It includes some of those non-Scripture books, but my use of it does not mean that I consider those additional books to be Scripture.

First century historian Josephus was a Palestinian Jew just like Jesus and the apostles. In Against Apion 1:8 Josephus reported that no books had been adopted as divine by Palestinian Jews since Persian rule; he describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority.”

I believe that neither Jesus nor the apostles who ran the New Testament church accepted these other pre-New Testament books. Some later Christians did.

Eliyahu
10-16-2006, 09:08 PM
Good and rightfully so.

Not according to select verses in the new testament and not according to the writings of the early church fiathers

Their stance was anti-christian. Their 5 judgements prove that.

Yes!

Do you have any proof of that? The LXX contained all that was recognized as inspired by the Greek speaking Jewish nation.



They killed Jesus.
They denied that he was the Messiah.
They denied the writings that would eventually become the New Testament.

I would not respond to every point of yours but want to remind your one specific point as you focus on the Jamnia Council.
We often refer to CNN, or History of Roman Empire etc as neutral witnesses on the controversial issues.
Jews killed Jesus and our sins killed Jesus as well. We don't deny the true reports by the Muslim media though they reject the Christian truth, as long as their reports are based on the true occurence
You said Jamnia invented such criteria which didn't exist before.
How about Josephus? You pointed out his immoral life or unfaithful life.
So do you believe that historians invented such criteria which never existed before? Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that there were certain criteria about the Bible canon even though it was not crystal clear. There are many commentaries and exegies on the books of OT, but no commentaries on the Apocrypha.
Dead Sea Scrolls show many commentaries on the books of OT Bible but there is no commentaries on the Apocrypha, even though there are some Apocrypha like Genesis AP, Tobit, Sirach, etc found in Qumran, which don't have the commentaries.
Apparently there existed some criteria on the Bible canon, before Christ.
There are only a few books which are controversial on its canonity which may be " Esther and Song of Solomon" but I believe only Esther could be arguable as Song of Songs clearly contain messianic teachings.
Among DSS, Manual of Discipline, Damascus Document, War Rule, Florilegium, Testimonia, Melchizedek Documents quote 39 books of Old Testament even including Esther, which means that all the OT in the canon were quoted as the authority of God's word.
Please read the "Dead Sea Scrolls Today" written by James VanderKam, page 150 and 151, published by Eerdmans.
Apparently there were Bible canon for OT before Christ which included No Apocrypha. The reason why we haven't heard about such canon very often or more clearly was because almost nobody argued about which books were in the canonized Bible as almost all the Jews had the consensus about the genuine Bible as we Protestant Christians have today.
Bible Canon doesn't depend on Jamnia Council, nor on Josephus. It was handed over thru the true believers all the time and it coincides with many discoveries such as Dead Sea Scrolls, and with Josephus and with Jamnia Council, and with Jewish Sages exegies, Targums etc.

I know there have been vehement claims by Roman Catholic to support Apocrypha or Septuagint. Septuagint contains many ridiculous translations and contradictions between the verses. The story that 70 people translated the Hebrew Torah into exactly the same Greek LXX is a ridiculous hoax as it is not Word-to-Word translation, but thought-to-thought translation.
The reason why Roman Catholic try to put the most value on LXX is because it contains Apocrypha. The existing LXX was written in 4 century 300 years after Jesus Christ. They modified OT reflecting NT.

Holding on Apocrypha is like drowning man's catching at a straw to hold the paganism such as prayer to the dead, prayer for the dead, to justify the suicide and assassination etc.

Eliyahu
10-16-2006, 09:46 PM
There are several in the Old Testament that don't claim
Hebrew was. It was the representative language of the Jews as well, since they lost use of the Hebrew, it fell away just as the Latin did. As English replaced Latin, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as native language with Greek being the second language. It's the same as our Hispanic community now. They speak in Spanish to each other, but when writing and conversing with the rest of the world, it is English.

Aramaic was used only in a few spots of OT such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel because the writers quoted the letters addressed to Kings of Babylon, Persia in the original languages used in the letters to the Kings.
If any Israelite write a letter to George Bush, he would write it in English, and when he write a book in Hebrew, he may quote the letter in English which is the original language of the letter.

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14), Jesus mentioned Jot and Tittle( Mt 5:18) which are found only in Hebrew, His title at the Cross was written in Latin, Greek, and in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The coins found at Bar-Korba Revolt shows the Hebrerw inscription.
Paul delivered the address in Hebrew to the people of Jerusalem ( Acts 21:40, 22:2)
What you know about the language used by Israelites in the biblical times is wrong.


What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following is an inspired book," this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

These tests failing, most Fundamentalists fall back on the notion that "the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired," an exercise in subjectivism akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible?, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical organization "Radio Bible Class," lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is, "Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment."

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

Gospels of NT were written by Disciples. Do you disbelieve these Gospels?
Do you doubt about the authority of Peter's writings?
What about Apostle John's writings?

Read the followings:

1 Cor 7:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

In other words, in many other Epistles Paul received the commandments from God. Moreover, he was the one who saw clearly Jesus Christ after his resurrection. Do you doubt about his authority to write the Bible books ? Among 27 NT books, 13 were written by Paul, 4 Gospels were by Disciples, Acts were written by Luke who accompanied Paul all the time.
What you may argue about are Jude and James as Martin Luther raised the question about James.

Throughout the Bible we can have no doubt about the canonicity of Bible books which the Protestant Christians have today, but we see the huge difference between Bible and Apocrypha, like the difference between Bible and novels or history books.

Any doctrines built upon Apocrypha is like a strawman.

Inquiring Mind
10-18-2006, 10:07 AM
"What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots'[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]." Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).

"Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? Or, who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.'[Ps. 19:1-3]." Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5 (c. A.D. 80).

"'Be just in your judgement' [Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving' [Sirach 4:31]." Didache, 4:3-5 (A.D. 90).

Eliyahu
10-18-2006, 04:04 PM
In your logic, the commentaries can become Bible because they refer to the Bible and much of its contents coincide with the Bible doctrines.

The Canon or qualification of Bible is not in such way. We can feel, discern and find which are the true and genuine Bible as we read 1 John 2:27.
You mentioned some points where Bible and AP are consistent each other, but there are much more verses where those AP differ from the Bible.
I am quite sure that the current Bible canon of Protestants are quite correct.
If you say so, even Mormon's Bible by Joseph Smith may be added, which is not right.

Inquiring Mind
10-21-2006, 07:41 PM
The Apocrypha...
This is what the fundamentalists call the 7 books in Catholic Bibles that protestant Bibles do not have. Catholics call them 'Deuterocanonicals'. They are, Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also include parts of Daniel and Esther. There are many other books, called Apocrypha, by Catholics that are not considered inspired. I believe Protestants merely put those 7 books in the same pot and called them all Apocrypha.

The Problem...
Non Catholics insist that the 'Council of Trent' added those seven books to bring the total number of books to 73. They point to the fact that the 'Council of Jamnia' removed those books from the Bible in 90-95 A.D., so they were never in the 'Bible' from that date on.
The Solution...

Absolutely right, for the second part of the problem. The 'Council of Jamnia' did indeed remove those 7 books. The fact of the matter is that Jamnia was not a Christian council, but a Jewish one, called specifically to counter Christianity. In keeping with their practice of presenting only half truths, the non-Catholic detractors fail to mention that fact. The Apostles and Christians in general, used the Greek'Septuagint', also called LXX, as their Bible in the first century. This upset the Jews, so they decided to call a council to deal with the matter. Keep in mind that the Jewish temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and all of the Jewish priests were killed. Now they were fearful that Christianity would overtake them. The Septuagint is the Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew, which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century B.C., and it had all 46 books including the Deuterocanonicals. The Jews decided to revise the canon of the Old Testament and they wanted to remove references that would be useful to Christians.

They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included.
1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

The seven books did not meet all 4 criteria set up by the Jews...
Baruch was not written in Palestine. Disqualified by reason 3.
Sirach and 1Maccabees were written after 400 B.C.. Disqualified by reason 4.
Tobit and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and outside of Palestine.
Disqualified by reasons 2 and 3.
Judith was written in Aramaic. Disqualified by reason 2.
Wisdom was written in Greek. Disqualified by reason 2.
2Maccabees was written after 400 B.C. and in Greek. Disqualified by reasons 2 and 4.

Christians continued to use the Septuagint. In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the 'Vulgate' which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don't forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther's own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were "added" at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren't there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a "reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament". They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it. Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council?

Protestants have repeatedly said there is no evidence that Deuterocanonical books are inspired as none of them are referenced in the New Testament. This is absolutely not true as there are several references to the "Deuters", and at least two from apocrypha which I have found...

Bible references (NT) to Apocryphal books:

1. Jude 1:9, Yet when Michael the archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he did not venture to bring against him an accusation of blasphemy, but said, "May the Lord rebuke thee."
This is only in the Apocryphal book, 'The Assumption of Moses'.

2. Jude 1:14, Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones..." This prophecy is from the Apocryphal Book of 'Enoch', 1:9.

3. 2Tim 3:8, "Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth, for they are corrupt in mind, reprobate as regards the faith." Although this is a reference to Ex 7:11, the 'magicians' of Pharaoh, they are not named in Exodus. They are found in the Apocryphal book 'Gospel of Nicodemus' 5:1. They are also found in the 'Narrative of Aeneas' Account of the Suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ', 5:4.

Bible references (NT) to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.: These references show legitimacy to these books that Protestants rejected.

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2Macc 7:1-29. How do you, who do not have 2Maccabees, explain that? Note! The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1King 17:23 and 2King 4:36.
2. Heb 11:38, "...wandering in the deserts, mountains..." This is found in 1Macc 2:28-30 and 2Macc 5:27.
3. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.
4. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.
5. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7
6. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6
7. Heb 1:3, "...brightness of His glory..." Similar to Wis 7:26-27
8. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.
9. 1Cor 6:13, "...food for the belly and belly for food..." Similar to Sir 36:20
10. Rom 1:18-32, GOD is known by the things He has created...Similar to Wis 13:1-9
11. Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Similar to Tob 4:16
12. Lk 14:13, "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.
13. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." Similar to Tob 13:21.
14. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.
15. Mt 18:15, "But if thy brother sin against thee..." Similar to Sir 19:13
16. Mt 25:36, "...sick and you visited me..." Similar to Sir 7:39.
17. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
18. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." Found in Wis 2:13.
19. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.
20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.
21. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.
22. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.
23. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.
24. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.
25. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

These are just a few that I have found, and with very little effort. Most of them were found just by reading the cross references in Bibles. There are many more.

Clearly from what I have shown, the seven disputed books should have not been removed by Protestants from the Bible.

Inquiring Mind
10-21-2006, 07:43 PM
I am finished with this thread.

I stand firm with the early church and not the Jews.

Eliyahu
10-21-2006, 11:57 PM
True Christian believers stand firm with the True Bible Canon only, not with the Whorish Idol Worshippers Apocrypha, not with goddes worshippers canon.

DHK
10-23-2006, 12:09 AM
I stand firm with the early church and not the Jews. But, thankfully, they don't stand with you.
The early church did not accept the apocrypha.
And the Jews certainly didn't. The Jews never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. which excludes all of the apocryphal books by well over 150 years. That one factor in itself excludes the apocrypha. Since the apostles were all Jew believers they would also have excluded the same spurious books.
Clearly from what I have shown, the seven disputed books should have not been removed by Protestants from the Bible. Who says they were removed? First there are fourteen, not seven. Secondly they were added by the RCC, not taken out by the Protestants. In other words they were never there in the first place. I believe you have some historical facts wrong. You must be reading the wrong history.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
10-23-2006, 02:19 AM
But, thankfully, they don't stand with you.
The early church did not accept the apocrypha.
And the Jews certainly didn't. The Jews never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. which excludes all of the apocryphal books by well over 150 years. That one factor in itself excludes the apocrypha. Since the apostles were all Jew believers they would also have excluded the same spurious books.
Who says they were removed? First there are fourteen, not seven. Secondly they were added by the RCC, not taken out by the Protestants. In other words they were never there in the first place. I believe you have some historical facts wrong. You must be reading the wrong history.
DHKIt's so exhausting to tell people basic historical facts over and over while they simply refuse to accept them. It's like arguing with someone for several minutes and with provision of several pieces of evidence to prove that George Washington was our first president. If they refuse to believe it, you finally just have to throw your hands in the air, walk away, and wonder if they were pulling your leg all along.

It is flagrantly false that "the Jews" never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. Some Jews--such as the unsaved Pharisees at Jamnia--never accepted any book written after 400 B.C., which excludes all of the New Testament books by well over 150 years. That one factor itself excludes the NT. Since the apostles were all Jews they would also have excluded the NT? As for "never there in the first place," the same councils that delineated the NT canon did so for the OT as well, and that canon remained in place until the Protestants cut parts of it out. It doesn't matter what history you read, as long as it's from reliable, credible scholarship--and I don't mean RCC or OC, I mean objective (as opposed to the sort of fiction made up by the author of Trail of Blood, which he recanted later).

DHK
10-23-2006, 03:50 PM
It is flagrantly false that "the Jews" never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. Some Jews--such as the unsaved Pharisees at Jamnia--never accepted any book written after 400 B.C., which excludes all of the New Testament books by well over 150 years. That one factor itself excludes the NT. Since the apostles were all Jews
Your understanding of the Bible is lacking.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Paul delineates only three groups of people in the NT: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God or the Christians.
Once a Gentile or a pagan became a Christian he was no longer a pagan, he was a Christian.
Once a Jew became a Christian he was no longer a Jew he was a Christian. They became ostracized by their own family. Read the story of Saul who went and persecuted all that were Christians throwing them into jails. These were former Jews, now Christians. In Acts 8 there was a great persecution against the church. It wasn't the Roman government at that time, it was the Jewish nation that was persecuting the Christians. It was people like Saul of Tarsus.

Jews of today still don't accept the NT. They only accept the OT.
Jews have never accepted the NT. They only accept the OT.
The Apostles were not Jews. They are Christians with a Jewish background. There is a big difference. They were first called Christians at Antioch. But they were not called Jews.

The Jews of the Old Testament, the authors of the OT books were saved in that they believed God, Jehovah. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness--and he was called the friend of God. He was saved. David was a man after God's own heart. He was saved. These were men that believed God, and God imputed righteousness unto them. You can read about many more of them in Hebrews chapter 11.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
10-24-2006, 03:08 AM
Your understanding of the Bible is lacking.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Paul delineates only three groups of people in the NT: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God or the Christians.
Once a Gentile or a pagan became a Christian he was no longer a pagan, he was a Christian.
Once a Jew became a Christian he was no longer a Jew he was a Christian. They became ostracized by their own family. Read the story of Saul who went and persecuted all that were Christians throwing them into jails. These were former Jews, now Christians. In Acts 8 there was a great persecution against the church. It wasn't the Roman government at that time, it was the Jewish nation that was persecuting the Christians. It was people like Saul of Tarsus.

Jews of today still don't accept the NT. They only accept the OT.
Jews have never accepted the NT. They only accept the OT.
The Apostles were not Jews. They are Christians with a Jewish background. There is a big difference. They were first called Christians at Antioch. But they were not called Jews.

The Jews of the Old Testament, the authors of the OT books were saved in that they believed God, Jehovah. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness--and he was called the friend of God. He was saved. David was a man after God's own heart. He was saved. These were men that believed God, and God imputed righteousness unto them. You can read about many more of them in Hebrews chapter 11.
DHKThat was certainly a major tangent. You used the phrase, referring to the apostles, that they were all "Jew believers." I changed the term, when paraphrasing you, to "Jews" to correct your grammar. I was already fully familiar with the threeway categorization you cite above. You are aware, of course, that it was not an ironclad rule of nomenclature, since Paul referred to himself as a Jew after his conversion. Also, AFAIK, Jews find it extremely offensive to have "Jew" used as an adjective instead of "Jewish," so I made correction. Further, I made reference to the unsaved Pharisees--they were not Christians--at Jamnia.

DHK
10-24-2006, 03:42 AM
I made reference to the unsaved Pharisees--they were not Christians--at Jamnia.
Of course they were not saved. They were Jews, of the nation of Israel The only Scriptures acceptable to them were the OT Scriptures, the 39 books as we know them today. They absolutely refused the apocrypha and any book that was written after 400 B.C., as does every Jew today. After the cross every Jew is unsaved no matter how devout they are. They have rejected their Messiah.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Yes, they were Jews and not Christians. So what! That gives more credence to why they accept only the 39 books of the OT as the canon of the OT, and not the Apocrypha nor the NT.
DHK

Matt Black
10-24-2006, 06:57 AM
I'm not at all sure I follow your argument: are you saying that, because the Jews and in particular Jamnia/Yavneh, rejected the Apocrypha/ DCs and the NT, that we should likewise reject those books?

Darron Steele
10-24-2006, 10:14 AM
Jesus, the first Christians of the early chapters of Acts, as well as the apostles were Palestinian Jews. Hence, I do not believe that they would have accepted any non-Scripture pre-New Testament books, such as the apocrypha or similar literature, to be Scripture. I do not believe that I am in a position to second guess the first Person mentioned or His personally-commissioned apostles.

DHK
10-24-2006, 01:07 PM
I'm not at all sure I follow your argument: are you saying that, because the Jews and in particular Jamnia/Yavneh, rejected the Apocrypha/ DCs and the NT, that we should likewise reject those books?
I was accused of making a false statement.
"The Jews never accepted any book before 400 A.D." was my original statement which I still stand by, and is considered as a lie to some. No, it is the truth. That is the reason I went to the trouble to define what a Jew is and why they accept only the OT without the Apocrypha.
This is a devastating argument to those who argue in favor of the Apocrypha.

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.
Neither have the Protestants.

The only ones to accept the Apocrypha as being inspired Scripture are the Cathollics. It supports some of the their more heretical doctrines, and the books themselves contain other errors.
DHK

Taufgesinnter
10-25-2006, 01:01 AM
I was accused of making a false statement.
"The Jews never accepted any book before 400 A.D." was my original statement which I still stand by, and is considered as a lie to some. No, it is the truth. That is the reason I went to the trouble to define what a Jew is and why they accept only the OT without the Apocrypha.
This is a devastating argument to those who argue in favor of the Apocrypha.

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.
Neither have the Protestants.

The only ones to accept the Apocrypha as being inspired Scripture are the Cathollics. It supports some of the their more heretical doctrines, and the books themselves contain other errors.
DHKUnfortunately, a large part of that last post is untrue. "The" Jews is untrue; "some" Jews is true. Even today, Ethiopian Jews accept part of the OT that other Jews reject. But this whole thing is useless by this point, because it has degenerated into "Yes they did," and "No, they didn't."

DHK
10-25-2006, 01:20 AM
Unfortunately, a large part of that last post is untrue. "The" Jews is untrue; "some" Jews is true. Even today, Ethiopian Jews accept part of the OT that other Jews reject. But this whole thing is useless by this point, because it has degenerated into "Yes they did," and "No, they didn't."
No, The Jews as a whole accept the MT of the OT as their canon of Scripture. I will assert that to my dying days. It is a true fact. The only "Jews" that may say otherwise would be liberals, the equivalent of the liberal faction of Christianity who deny the virgin birth of Christ and His deity. I am speaking of Jews, those who are the children of Israel and have not apostasized from being so.
DHK

Matt Black
10-25-2006, 12:20 PM
The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.
I'm intrigued as to how you purport to know this. Do you have a quote from the New Testament to support your contention?

DHK
10-25-2006, 02:00 PM
I'm intrigued as to how you purport to know this. Do you have a quote from the New Testament to support your contention?
The Jews:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (ca. 700 B.C.)

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (One of the last books to be written)

It is an established historical fact that no book of the Jewish canon was considered inspired or even considered for canonicity if it was written after 400 B.C. The entire Jewish canon was completed by 400 B.C., in not earlier. It was impossible for the Apocrypha written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. to be a part of the Old Testament Scriptures when the OT Scriptures had already been completed.

Jesus:
Jesus grew up as a Jews.
He did not break the law of God only condemned the tradition of the Pharisees. He came to fulfill the law, not break it. In the light of Isaiah 8:20 he could not have accepted uinspired books. He makes no reference to them. He never quotes them. He quotes many other OT books but never the Apocrypha. Remeber that some of them were written during and after his ministry. It is absurd logic to think that either the Apostles or Jesus could accept books as Scripture that were written after their lifetime.

Apostles.
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of whose words?
The words of the prophets of the Old Testament, and
The words of the Apostles of the New Testament.
These are the writers of the Bible. There are no others. Put Sirach in the trash can and forget about him; likewise Baruch. They are false prophets, as far as Scripture is concerned. The believers were to take heed only to the OT writers and to the writings of the Apostles of the NT. They knew which books were inspired. The Apostles told them.

Early Christians.
The early Christians were taught by the Apostles.
The above verse in 2Peter 3:2 is evidence enough.
DHK

Matt Black
10-25-2006, 03:23 PM
Sorry, didn't quite catch that. None of the above quotes refer to any of the DC books. I was kind of looking for a quote from Jesus or one of the apostolic letters along the lines of "Oh, by the way, guys, don't touch II Macabees with a barge-pole; it's a bit dodgy theologically so give it a wide berth". None of the passages referred to by you says anything remotely like that, so I'm not sure what your evidence is...?

tragic_pizza
10-25-2006, 03:45 PM
I'd be willing to think that Paul, being from Tarsus, might have been familiar with the Septuagint, and thus the DC books. The Eleven, though, were Palestinian Jews, and (at least I think) have retained the Hebrew Scriptures.

In any case, does not Jude quote the extracanonical Book of Enoch? Isn't there at least one other quote in the Pastoral Epistles from the DCs? I think so, but I cannot recall...

DHK
10-25-2006, 05:25 PM
Sorry, didn't quite catch that. None of the above quotes refer to any of the DC books. I was kind of looking for a quote from Jesus or one of the apostolic letters along the lines of "Oh, by the way, guys, don't touch II Macabees with a barge-pole; it's a bit dodgy theologically so give it a wide berth". None of the passages referred to by you says anything remotely like that, so I'm not sure what your evidence is...?
That's like asking Shakespeare to quote from Winston Churchill. Your demands are absurd.
The OT canon was completed in 400 AD. The Apocrypha is considered to be an OT insertion, which it is not. That is why the Jews never accepted them That is why not only the Jews, but Jesus and the Apostles--all being Jews or formerly Jews would never accept them. They knew the truth concerning these spurious books.
Did you want Moses to quote from Malachi as well? At least Malach is inspired and part of the canon if Moses had that capability. But the Apocrypha wasn't finished until about 50 AD
DHK

Jim1999
10-25-2006, 07:26 PM
What books did the early Christians have? How do we know what they accepted or rejected outright?

We know that the majority of New Testament references are to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.

Cheers,

Jim

Taufgesinnter
10-26-2006, 02:23 AM
No, The Jews as a whole accept the MT of the OT as their canon of Scripture. I will assert that to my dying days. It is a true fact. The only "Jews" that may say otherwise would be liberals, the equivalent of the liberal faction of Christianity who deny the virgin birth of Christ and His deity. I am speaking of Jews, those who are the children of Israel and have not apostasized from being so.
DHKThe Jews today--in general--do accept the medieval MT of the Jamnian canon as their Scripture. Go ahead and assert that. It is a true fact, despite the amount of fiction you've otherwise posted. I don't think, though, that any reasonable and informed person would call Ethiopian Jews "liberals."

Taufgesinnter
10-26-2006, 02:37 AM
The Jews:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (ca. 700 B.C.)

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (One of the last books to be written)

It is an established historical fact that no book of the Jewish canon was considered inspired or even considered for canonicity if it was written after 400 B.C. The entire Jewish canon was completed by 400 B.C., in not earlier. It was impossible for the Apocrypha written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. to be a part of the Old Testament Scriptures when the OT Scriptures had already been completed.

Jesus:
Jesus grew up as a Jews.
He did not break the law of God only condemned the tradition of the Pharisees. He came to fulfill the law, not break it. In the light of Isaiah 8:20 he could not have accepted uinspired books. He makes no reference to them. He never quotes them. He quotes many other OT books but never the Apocrypha. Remeber that some of them were written during and after his ministry. It is absurd logic to think that either the Apostles or Jesus could accept books as Scripture that were written after their lifetime.

Apostles.
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of whose words?
The words of the prophets of the Old Testament, and
The words of the Apostles of the New Testament.
These are the writers of the Bible. There are no others. Put Sirach in the trash can and forget about him; likewise Baruch. They are false prophets, as far as Scripture is concerned. The believers were to take heed only to the OT writers and to the writings of the Apostles of the NT. They knew which books were inspired. The Apostles told them.

Early Christians.
The early Christians were taught by the Apostles.
The above verse in 2Peter 3:2 is evidence enough.
DHKI rarely expose any of my personally identifying information on the Internet, but let me say at least this: I was trained as a professional historian, have completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in history, and have several years experience teaching college history. If you submitted the above as the answer to an essay question on this topic, your grade would not be very good, regardless of my own viewpoint being opposed to yours. Why? Never in an argument should one simply assert that something "is an established historical fact," but rather, should cite relevant scholarship and primary sources. The rest of the problem lies in blatant, repeated circular reasoning. You assume your "facts" a priori, without proof or with insubstantial proof. For example, you assume certain books are uninspired, then write that Jesus would not accept uninspired books. But you have not proven that the books in question are uninspired or that Jesus regarded them so. II Peter. 3:2 is no evidence whatsoever, since it does not identify the books that were written by the holy prophets. So far, throughout this entire thread, you have offered no "devastating" evidence or arguments to overturn the early Christians' reliance on the Deuterocanonical books, or on the Church's decisions to include them in the canon before the Masoretes even began to assemble their current text.

Matt Black
10-26-2006, 05:01 AM
Thanks, Tauf. Exactly what I was trying to say, but put many times better.

DHK
10-26-2006, 05:07 AM
I rarely expose any of my personally identifying information on the Internet, but let me say at least this: I was trained as a professional historian, have completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in history,.
Good for you. The please explain how books written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. can be considered Scripture by the Jews who:
1. would accept only books that were written before 400 B.C.
2. Their entire canon was complete by 400 B.C. and in fact translated into Greek by 250 B.C. at which time there was no Apocrypha. Only in later editions, after the time of Christ was the Apocrypha inserted in the LXX.
3. The Jews never accepted any book that was not written in Hebrew into their canon of Scripture. All of the apocryphal books were written in Greek.
There is no possible way that the Jews would have accepted these books into their canon.

If the Jews would not have accepted them, then neither would have Jesus being brought up in orthodox Jewish schools, such as the synagogues, and neither would have the Apostles having acquired the same education.
DHK