Why not Apocraphy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Renton405

Guest
First off the KJV came from the septuagint..

the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition
Good Day, Renton

I agree with much of this.




Indeed some do still use the LXX.



You make some good points here, the NT writtings are indeed in Greek, and do appear to quote the LXX that is because they are both Greek.

If we were both to write a book on Windows Networking in english in some cases it would appear that we are quoting each other. When in fact we are not.

You said: in many different ways

"Knowing that the LXX was extensively used by the early believers"

But, you have shown no historical basis for this assertion.

The RCC PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION notes on the notion:


"There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonical”. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek — called the Septuagint — which was adopted by Christians.
Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included."

Much of your premise here is doubtfull at best, in that it lacks any historical basis.​

The reading of the (Apoc) will not hurt any one agreed. I have read some of them, nor will the reading of the ECF's or J Calvin or Luther. They are usefull indeed the question is are they a source on which we are to base doctrine? Should they be viewed on the same level as the other 22-24 books of the jewish scriptures?

Not sure how you arrived at some date of 95 for the fixing of the Jewish canon??? Jesus held the the Jews to a collection of books during OT times, these books would have been well know to the Jews of His day.

Peace to u,

Bill



Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..

I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..

Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,850
1,708
58
New England
✟484,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..


Umm yes seeing I have done so it is fair for you to assume it can be done.

To use a historical standard is neither a RC or Prots standard, it is an objective standard employed by many types of people. If you subjectivly belive it or not is not very important to the use of such standards, only goes to show standards of prove to determine facts some how escape you. As a result so do "facts".

I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..

The greek of the LXX is consistant with the Greek of the NT I have agreed with you, not sure what you point is ...:scratch:

Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..

Does the words "no man takes my life I freely lay it down" ring any bells for you.

The fact of the matter is your assertion of the use of the LXX by early belivers, lacks historical basis even according to your own denomination.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
65
✟18,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
First off the KJV came from the septuagint..

the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition



Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..

I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..

Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..


Are you claiming the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint? Or simply the Vulgate has all the books in the Septuagint?

Another thing, no one would dispute that many quotes in the New Testament agree with the Septuagint, but it should also be noted that not all do so.

As far as not using the authority of those who crucified Jesus, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.

Marv
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Are you claiming the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint? Or simply the Vulgate has all the books in the Septuagint?

Another thing, no one would dispute that many quotes in the New Testament agree with the Septuagint, but it should also be noted that not all do so.

As far as not using the authority of those who crucified Jesus, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.

Marv
At who's request? Would Pilate have crucified Jesus had the Pharisee's not DEMANDED it?
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
65
✟18,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My sins demanded it too. Yet I did not give the sentence nor perform the execution, that was done through Rome and it's authority and by it's soldiers. If one is going to reject something because it executed Jesus, then one, if you want to be honest, must look to Rome. For Rome was the executioner of Christ.

The whole basis of the original statement is flawed, but if you desire to follow the logic, the trail leads to Rome.

Marv
 
Upvote 0

Somerset

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2006
812
157
Florida
✟16,722.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The more reason for u to be silent then....u critise our protestant brethen and thier basis of private intepretation...have u no heart?

I don't believe ShammahBenJudah was criticizing by quoting the Bible...did not Jesus also say...{speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees of his time} Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mat 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it.:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reyanah
Upvote 0

Reyanah

Wee Lassie
Oct 31, 2006
2,030
246
USA
✟10,896.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree Somerset. Furthermore, the Bible has to this to say about this thread and so many more here that are just like it...of no benefit to the body of Christ other than to cause division and strife.

Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Divisions are mentioned 6 times in the Bible.

Exd 8:23 And I will put a division between my people and thy people: to morrow shall this sign be.

2Ch 35:5 And stand in the holy [place] according to the divisions of the families of the fathers of your brethren the people, and [after] the division of the families of the Levites.

Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Jhn 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

Jhn 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Jhn 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

There will soon be a seperation again...between the wheat and tares and the sheep and goats...

The tares to be gathered and burned in the fire and likewise the goats.
The devil comes to cause confusion, chaos and to steal, kill and destroy.

The fruits of the spirit are...
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Gal 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
 
Upvote 0
R

Renton405

Guest
Umm yes seeing I have done so it is fair for you to assume it can be done.

To use a historical standard is neither a RC or Prots standard, it is an objective standard employed by many types of people. If you subjectivly belive it or not is not very important to the use of such standards, only goes to show standards of prove to determine facts some how escape you. As a result so do "facts".


Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined

Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..I was speaking from a level of hypocrisy. A child dosen't critize his father out of respect. The protestants shouldn't critize the catholics considering all they have given them..

Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?

Was Martin Luther crucified for you?

Was John Calvin?

Was Ellen White?

(before you attack the pope or bishops)

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17)” (LS:177-178).

90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BereanTodd

Missionary Heart
Nov 26, 2006
2,448
281
48
Houston, Tx
✟11,542.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17)” (LS:177-178).

The word 'Bishop' and 'deacon' do not appear in the text there at all by the way. That is a very poor translation of that text.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined


Do you ask these same questions of your own denomination?


Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..

And whose view is that of the Catholic denomination? Is it not that of the Catholic denomination?



Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?

Was Martin Luther crucified for you?

Was John Calvin?

Was Ellen White?


Was Pope Benedict?
Was the Catholic denomination?



And what does this have to do with the Catholic Church taking out 4 of the DC books from their canon?



90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache


You probably know that the Didache is a REJECTED book, the early Christians REJECTED it as NOT being Scripture. And you might also notice it says NOTHING about the Catholic denomination. Nor does it mention the Infallible Pope. And it doesn't mention the 4 DC books the Catholic denomination took out of the Bible.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.
 
Upvote 0

BereanTodd

Missionary Heart
Nov 26, 2006
2,448
281
48
Houston, Tx
✟11,542.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is very clear in scripture that the word bishops, presbyters, and priests are in the bible.. I don't find anywhere where is says "pastors" except the very new versions.. The KJV and septuagint clearly lists this

The word elder, overseer (bishop) and shepherd are all in the NT (pastor is a form of shepherd by the way, so the word IS in the NT). But that does not change that they are NOT in the OT, they are NOT found in quoted passage from Isaiah.
 
Upvote 0
R

Renton405

Guest
Do you ask these same questions of your own denomination?

No i do not. It would be the same as questioning the holy spirit..




[/QUOTE]And whose view is that of the Catholic denomination? Is it not that of the Catholic denomination? [/QUOTE]

It is the view of the holy spirit handed to down from Jesus, to the apostles, to the ECFs to the people. The holy spirit controls, directs, and teaches the church. It started in AD 33 not the year 1500..





[/QUOTE]Was Pope Benedict?[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Was the Catholic denomination?[/QUOTE]

The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ. I talk of the church as I would a mother..



[/QUOTE]And what does this have to do with the Catholic Church taking out 4 of the DC books from their canon?[/QUOTE]


The same way it has to do with Martin Luther plagurizing the bible...



[/QUOTE]You probably know that the Didache is a REJECTED book, the early Christians REJECTED it as NOT being Scripture. And you might also notice it says NOTHING about the Catholic denomination. Nor does it mention the Infallible Pope. And it doesn't mention the 4 DC books the Catholic denomination took out of the Bible. [/QUOTE]


It was written by the apostles though still..thus gives insight......fl
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,850
1,708
58
New England
✟484,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined

Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..I was speaking from a level of hypocrisy. A child dosen't critize his father out of respect. The protestants shouldn't critize the catholics considering all they have given them..

Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?

Was Martin Luther crucified for you?

Was John Calvin?

Was Ellen White?

(before you attack the pope or bishops)

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17)” (LS:177-178).

90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache

Good Day, Renton

You have caught your self a BIG "RED FISH".

You have asserted that the LXX was used by the 12 and early believers, yet have failed to provide any historical proof for your assertion.

Thus it remains your assertion, as you have no basis to prove it. Your name it claim it history is just silly in light of the record.

You may be better off to bread that fish and bake it, not half baked like your assertion, but cook it all the way. ;)

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

albertmc

Regular Member
Dec 22, 2005
301
37
67
Visit site
✟15,629.00
Faith
Anglican
You probably know that the Didache is a REJECTED book, the early Christians REJECTED it as NOT being Scripture. And you might also notice it says NOTHING about the Catholic denomination. Nor does it mention the Infallible Pope. And it doesn't mention the 4 DC books the Catholic denomination took out of the Bible. .

I think your words reflect a bias in their choosing or at least in their capitalization. The Church did not necessarily REJECT the Didache - what it did is not ACCEPT it as Scripture. Those are two entirely different things. There were lots of letters exchanged back and forth between the Church in the first century and these can tell us much about what was going on. But Scripture reflects something more than the Church's beliefs - it reflects the Holy Spirit protecting its authrors from error. Other things written may have been perfectly orthodox and even correct in its details but the Church eventually did not find it to be inspired. That something is not Scripture does not mean in was rejected. The epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna were highly revered but not placed in the Canon.

In the case of the Didache, the reason for its not being as highly preserved is that it did not perfectly reflect theological currents that would occupy the Church later and so was not considered as important - but noone thought it was heretical or in anyway thoroughly rejected by the Church as expressing falsehood.

On the question of bishops, there is a perfectly obvious explanation for the evolution of the office. There was no bishops during the initial phase of the Church but there were at the local levels presbyters and deacons chosen from the local church who were accountable to the Apostles.

As churces grew out of their stage of spiritual infancy, there were appointed leaders who would take charge as pastor of the local church and be responsible to the Apostles and each other. These could be seen as "fixed apostles" of a sort as opposed to the original Apsotles who ministered to many Churches. The first was James in Jerusalem. As local churches matured, they were appointed more such leaders. This is likely why you see the practice moving from the older churches in the East to the newer ones in the West. As the Apsotles died, the practice accelerated. The words "episkopos" and "presbuteros" - originally used interchangably - came to be separated over time to reflect the change in office.

We need to forget the ideas we have of a bishop being some guy who sits around in fancy robes and gets his ring kissed. That all came when the bishops became officers of the Empire. Bishops in the early were the pastors of the local congregation who served as the sign of unity in the Church and were responsible to the church to protect the true faith in their local congregations from heresies. Thus we see bishops in one location interfering with the affairs of the church elsewhere when there is a threat to the unity of the Body of Christ. Many protestants have something akin to bishops anyway - they just call them pastors.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.