Christianity and how the bible was put together

I am just saying read the quote again. It is a bit ambiguous and may not be saying what you think it is saying. Besides that, I gave you another quote which clears up all ambiguity of what Jerome's position is. Did you read that one?

The issue is with the RCC. Jerome disagreed with the RCC, and did not want to be pressured by them to put the Apocrypha into the Bible. The RCC has maintained all along that the RCC is part of the Bible. Why shouldn't they? It supports their doctrine of purgatory and other heretical doctrines.

There is no quote from 2Mac. in the NT, nowhere. You can't prove that. There was nothing there even remotely similar--no similarity whatsoever. To say that there was is just nonsense.

The Masoretes took care in copying the Scriptures. Though they lived in the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, they did not change any of the content. What they did do is put in the vowel pointing for those of us who study the Hebrew language to make it easier to study. (We would be lost without it). Before that time trained scribes took great pains in copying the Scriptures, even counting all the letters that were on each page. The Jewish scribes were very meticulous. The Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which date back to 150 B.C. verify the accuracy of the transmission of the OT canon.

Luke 11:50-51 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
What is Jesus teaching here?
Abel was considered to be the first prophet.
Zecharias was the last prophet.

Jesus was saying from the first to the last prophet, their blood would be required on this (that generation) of people.
There was no prophet after Zecharias, not until John the Baptist.
There was a period of 400 years of silence where God spoke to no one. It is called the intertestamental period. In that period arose the Pharisees, the Saducees, the LXX, the synagogues, Herod's Temple, and a few other things. But God was silent.

The OT Canon was completed ca. 400 B.C.
There had to be an OT in place for a translation to be made.
The LXX was the first translation that was ever made. It was made in 250 B.C.
It is quite evident then, that the OT Canon was in place before that date.
As with the OT, so with the NT. God did not see fit for the originals to survive. I believe this was in his will. When original documents or other such things survive man has the propensity to worship them. God doesn't want man to fall into the temptation of idolatry, but He has promised to preserve His Word, which he has done.

See above, unless you are looking for more.
What exactly are you looking for. Are you looking for a quote from Jesus?

 

Huh? I think my words actually denied that.

Read it again. Reading it might help avoid your apparent confusion.

Second, I do not see how you can deny what I posted. Do you know of any Jews that rejected Jonah? It Tobit in the Jewish Bible? Was the early church united in accepting what Rome called the "deuterocanonicals?" Did any large group within the church reject Jonah?

I know of no Jews that rejected Jonah except the Sadducees, who rejected everything but the first five books. My copy of the Jewish Bible does not have Tobit in it, and the evidence denies that Palestinian Jews accepted it as Scripture even in Jesus' time. The early church was not united in accepting Tobit or any other so-called "deuterocanonical" book. To my knowledge, all early church people who rejected the Old Testament as Scripture were rejected.

 

...which rather leaves out the other genre, history, eg: 1 & 2 Kings etc

But the Greek Bible (OT) has more - and this was the OT used by Christians from the earliest times of the Church

What about the quote from 2 Maccabees referenced in Hebrews 11 to which TS has referred?

Shame about the NT then...

Why not? Where's your evidence of such a decision being made? Please produce the document or canons of the Jewish council (prior to Yavneh) that made this decision. Canonisation of the OT by the Jews was still in process up to Yavneh itself, with the Torah being generally agreed c.400BC, the Prophets c.200BC and the Writings not until Yavneh c100AD

Except the LXX

Depends which Bible you have. The KJV, for example, uses the TR which is based on the Greek LXX. If you use only the MT (which is way, way after the time of Jesus BTW), then you lose some of the essential doctrine of the OT Messianic prophecies eg: Isaiah 7:14, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a child" (LXX) becomes "a young woman shall conceive and bear a child" (MT). Not only is the LXX rather than the MT version quoted by Matthew (Matt 1:23) but the MT version denies the virgin birth (as one would expect given that no unbelieving Jew would want to affirm that doctrine!)

What is your authority for believing that? The only authority I can think of is the Yavneh school; don't forget that these were the same guys who threw the Christians out of the synagogues (John 9:22) and who Jesus calls the 'synagogue of Satan' (Rev 2:9; 3:9) - not exactly appropriate theological bedfellows for a Christian!

Not if it's Yavneh, for the reasons above. If you want to align yourself with a bunch of anti-Christian Jews, then that's up to you, but as a Christian I prefer to go with the decisions of the first Christians, thank you very much.

That doesn't address my point re the Orthodox

You adduce no evidence concerning this dating; if you are referring to the dates of the earliest LXX MSS (4th-5th centuries AD), then you might as well say that Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the 11th century AD, since that is the date of the earliest MSS for that work. Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain about two-thirds of Sirach.

But that doesn't address the use by the Orthodox, who had nothing to do with Trent, and had been using the DCs long before that - in fact since the first century

 

Er...yes: the Sadducees, as you yourself admit

Yep

Nope, at least not until after the Yavneh rabbis had done their work

 

The books of the LXX were in flux up until the 4th century.
I would contend, and I am not alone, that Origen is the first proof, 200 years later I will add, that we have of some of the Deuterocanonicals being included in the LXX but certainly still indicating it was in flux by not naming all of them as being part of it.

The LXX containing all of the Deuterocanonicals in 30 AD...
No proof.

 

The Hexapla? So what, when we have numerous examples of the NT quoting from the DCs...

 

FWIW, Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians also quoted Tobit (in the same manner he quoted protocanonical Scripture).

 

There is not a single reputable scholar who sees numerous. The general number given is 3 to 6.
When you compare the number of quotes from the OT with the possible quotes, and they are all possible quotes, not confirmed, there is no comparison.
We are all familiar with how the NT introduces and quotes the OT.

Regardless,
A quote from a book does not mean it is in the LXX. The NT only quotes from the LXX? No. Of course not. However, it is certainly possible that a few of the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ but everyone I have EVER read said it was in flux until much later.
The earliest existing copies have different books. Because, it was in flux.

Polycarp. Yes, it is certainly possible that Polycarp used a copy of the LXX with Tobit 120 years after the timeframe we are referring to. On the other hand, Irenaeus a few years later calls Shepherd of Hermes scripture as well. The ECF..fun bunch to quote

 

I did not explain this point very well. Let me try it again.
The Hebrew canon (that is the OT) is arranged differently than ours. Genesis is the first book. And 2 Chronicles is the last books. Many of the books are combined together, so that while having the exact number of our books (39), they only have 22. For example the 12 Minor Prophets are all treated as one book called "The Twelve." Again, Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Canon. The last event and the last prophet to be mentioned in the Hebrew canon is Zacharias. What Jesus was saying is: From the very first prophet in the Bible to the very last prophet in the Bible, your blood will be upon them all. Malachi, of course, was included somewhere in the middle.
From the first to the last prophet. That effectively excluded the Apocrypha.

 

Indeed they are, particularly in demonstrating that the status of the canon--Old and New Testaments--wasn't as need and tidy as many modern-day scholars and internet apologists might suppose. The "limits" of both the Christian OT and Chrisian NT for the first few centuries of the church was to a degree in a state of "flux". :smilewinkgrin:

 

I did not miss any point. The very notion...absurd
I am trying to make my point and as DT points out; it might be throwing a cold blanket on BOTH sides actually.
One cannot say the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ.
We have no existing copies at the time.
The ECF quote some, not others, and ones that never made it in.
The earliest copies do not contain the same books.
People are trying to oversimplify the argument on one side and on the other side overstate their case...in my humble opinion...

 

OH, quite a few more:

Matt 2:16 references Wisdom 11:7
Matt 7:16-20 ditto Sirach 27:6
Matt 16:16 - Wisdom 16:13
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - ironically, here the Sadducees, although not recognising any books outwith the Penteteuch as being canonical, nevertheless quote from Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 re the 7 brothers
Mark 9:48 - Jesus quotes from Judith 16:17
Luke 21:24 - Jesus quotes from Sirach 28:18

etc. And that's just from the Synoptic Gospels. I could go on but I think the point is made: whether or not you regard this as evidence that the DCs were accepted as authoritative in the time of Jesus, I think it should lay to rest your doubts as to their existence at that time.

Then, with all due respect, you've been reading the wrong sources; as shown above, the Gospels themselves attest to their existence

 

Hmmm...well, that's half of Daniel out the window then, since that's in Aramaic. So, to recap, we've lost the story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three from Daniel; now we have to excise Dan 2-7. Not a lot left now, is there?

 

Let us look at the "quotes"

Matt 2:16 references Wisdom 11:


Matthew 2:16-17

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:

18 "A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more."



Wisdom 11:7
“For a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for:”

Which OT event is it referenced? One prior to Wisdom 11:7? Of course! that is what Matthew 2:17 tells us in the next verse. The wording is not even similar. Matthew is referring to an event a long time prior to the DC and the wording is not even similiar.



'Matt 7:16-20 ditto Sirach 27:6"


Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Sirach 27:6 The fruit declareth if the tree have been dressed; so is the utterance of a conceit in the heart of man.


common saying worded completely differ. Both sentences do contain the word “fruit”. That is hard to imagine that Christ could not have come up with fruit without his scroll of Sirach handy….


Matt 16:16 - Wisdom 16:13

Mat 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Wisom 16:13: For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again.


Completely different verses.



Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - ironically, here the Sadducees, although not recognising any books outwith the Penteteuch as being canonical, nevertheless quote from Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 re the 7 brothers


Tobit 3:8
8: Because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her. Dost thou not know, said they, that thou hast strangled thine husbands? thou hast had already seven husbands, neither wast thou named after any of them.

the number “seven” is used in both…Is that what you mean? Every time a number is used it means that is quotes from a book that uses 7?



Mark 9:48 quotes from Judith 16:17

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Judith 16:17 Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever.


Or is it quoting Isaiah 66 written hundreds of years earlier?


And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


Luke 21:24 - Jesus quotes from Sirach 28:18


And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled

18: Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.

Joshua
Jos 8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

The phrase "edge of the sword" is all over the OT. Including fallen with it.


This is a cut and paste from many different Catholic websites. Completely discredited time and time again. Vaguely similiar words used to prove quotations. Ignoring if the SAME phrase was used hundreds of years earlier. This is the proof of the NT using the DC? I can go through all hundred Catholics use to try to prove this. They are all the same.

www.confrontingcatholicism.com