What Old Testament text did Jesus use ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
64
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fact that a quote, in and of itself, doesn't prove inspiration in no way suggests that a lack of a quote then disproves inspiration. There is no logical connection there whatsoever.

But that was not the logical path you were following when I made the comment, was it ?
 
Upvote 0
C

ContentInHim

Guest
So, Jesus hated man-made traditions, but followed them anyway?
Jesus hated the fence that the Pharisees had erected around Torah. Like what constituted work on the Sabbath - not stripping wheat of it's grain to eat, for example. Or how many steps one could walk on Sabbath or the pattern for washing your hands before eating. None of this was God's law - it was manmade! :)
 
Upvote 0

Knowledge3

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2005
9,515
18
✟9,814.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Deuteronomy is not oral Torah. The Pharisees interpreted and wrote down oral Torah. This is what Jesus (about 99% of the time) was objecting to. Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy! :thumbsup:

Oh, thank you for correcting me.
 
Upvote 0

TigerBunny

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2007
951
59
✟8,872.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Jesus hated the fence that the Pharisees had erected around Torah. Like what constituted work on the Sabbath - not stripping wheat of it's grain to eat, for example. Or how many steps one could walk on Sabbath or the pattern for washing your hands before eating. None of this was God's law - it was manmade! :)

You know...I really need to sit down with my Messianic brothers and sisters sometime just to hang out and fellowship.

Love to you folks.
 
Upvote 0

Tyndale

Veteran
Feb 3, 2007
1,920
127
United kingdom
✟10,061.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
My, my, we've certainly went around the rosary bush in this thread, diverting the topic from the original question of whether Jesus quoted from the apocryphal books.

Did any of the New Testament writers quote any of the apocryphal books in the New Testament?
 
Upvote 0

xristos.anesti

Veteran
Jul 2, 2005
1,790
224
✟10,525.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You are referring to Devterocanon?

Here are a couple I can think of top of my head:

Rev 8, 2-4. quoting Tobit 12, 15.

Heb 11,35(b). referring to II Maccabees 7, 1-29.

Also, St. Jude is quoting from Enoch 1, 9. in his Catholic Epistle verses 14 and 15.
It is not a devterocanonical book but it is an interesting case.

Many years.
 
Upvote 0

NewToLife

Senior Veteran
Jan 29, 2004
3,029
223
57
London
✟11,839.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
I'm under the impression that its fairly well established that the Septuagint was the most likely source of scripture in Palestine at that time. Certainly the quotations in the NT seem to be from the Septuagint which included the so-called Apochrypha.

I imagine Tyndale is trying to make the case that because some books are not quoted in the NT they must not be inspired and are therefore uncanonical?

If that is the case I guess he'll be removing the books in his own protestant OT that are likewise not quoted? I wonder how many fewer than 66 books there will be in the new version should this be the case?
 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
64
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I imagine Tyndale is trying to make the case that because some books are not quoted in the NT they must not be inspired and are therefore uncanonical?

If that is the case I guess he'll be removing the books in his own protestant OT that are likewise not quoted? I wonder how many fewer than 66 books there will be in the new version should this be the case?

And if that is the case, I wonder where he gets that rationale, it's certainly not to be found in Scripture, or in the history or writings of those who canonized the books of the Bible.
 
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

Vasileios

Eastern Orthodox Christian
Apr 15, 2006
885
194
46
Crete
✟15,480.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Some people must have spoken Greek in Palestine. Else there would be no reason to include Greek (and first!) on the sign on the cross. Greek was then what English is now. (Alexander the Great having a lot to do with that 300 years before...)

Just a semi-related note to think about...
 
Upvote 0

Tyndale

Veteran
Feb 3, 2007
1,920
127
United kingdom
✟10,061.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
You are referring to Devterocanon?

Here are a couple I can think of top of my head:

Rev 8, 2-4. quoting Tobit 12, 15.

Heb 11,35(b). referring to II Maccabees 7, 1-29.

Also, St. Jude is quoting from Enoch 1, 9. in his Catholic Epistle verses 14 and 15.
It is not a devterocanonical book but it is an interesting case.

Thanks for them references xristos, but they are not quotations directly linking the apocryphal books, it's authors and especially the spiritual content within the apocrypha.

The book of Enoch was written between the Old and New Testaments (150-80 B.C.), so this can't be considered scripture as the Book of Enoch was not written by the real Enoch who lived before the flood.

Scripture was written by eyewitness. Deut (31:19-21), Isaiah (8:1)+ (30:8), Jeremiah (30:2) and Luke (1v1) explains how scripture is written.
 
Upvote 0

Tyndale

Veteran
Feb 3, 2007
1,920
127
United kingdom
✟10,061.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
I imagine Tyndale is trying to make the case that because some books are not quoted in the NT they must not be inspired and are therefore uncanonical?

If that is the case I guess he'll be removing the books in his own protestant OT that are likewise not quoted? I wonder how many fewer than 66 books there will be in the new version should this be the case?

you know what imagination does, don't you?:thumbsup: Don't imagine too much my friend!

The apocryphal books are definately not inspired, they might serve as a source of reading, but nothing within should be considered as scripture, worthy of the christian belief.

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
 
Upvote 0

xristos.anesti

Veteran
Jul 2, 2005
1,790
224
✟10,525.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for them references xristos, but they are not quotations directly linking the apocryphal books, it's authors and especially the spiritual content within the apocrypha
The book of Enoch was written between the Old and New Testaments (150-80 B.C.), so this can't be considered scripture as the Book of Enoch was not written by the real Enoch who lived before the flood.
Scripture was written by eyewitness. Deut (31:19-21), Isaiah (8:1)+ (30:8), Jeremiah (30:2) and Luke (1v1) explains how scripture is written.

Many years Tyndale,

I understand that we all have our views to support and thus nothing contradicting can step in the way.

It is obvious that Jude quoted from Enoch - I mean he says it himself.

As far as you presentation that EYEWITNESSES are the writers of the Scripture, I think that you will find that that is not the case for both Ss. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses of what they wrote in their Gospels - so this rule of yours is obviously incorrect.

As far as Enoch is concerned and the perceived untruth in this book due to the book not being written by Enoch, do you consider that all of the books of the old testament - whom you consider to be accurate - were indeed written by the people whose name they carry - i.e. Book of Daniel, the percentage of Psalms, etc. Even in the New Testament we have the example of the Epistle to Hebrews.

Now, I am not saying what should be in the Bible and what should not - the Catholic Church did this many years ago - I am just pointing to a certain amount of inaccuracy in your views.

I hope this helps.
 
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

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by xristos.anesti
You are referring to Devterocanon?

Here are a couple I can think of top of my head:

Rev 8, 2-4. quoting Tobit 12, 15.

Heb 11,35(b). referring to II Maccabees 7, 1-29.

Also, St. Jude is quoting from Enoch 1, 9. in his Catholic Epistle verses 14 and 15.
It is not a devterocanonical book but it is an interesting case.
I don't know if Maccabees is pointing to that verse in Hebrews but I believe he was pointing out more that the Saints should perservere unto death until the awaiting Deliverence comes from the Parousia of the Lord.
Interesting verse. :wave:

Hebrew 11:35 Received/taken women out of a resurrection of the dead ones of them. Yet others are beaten up/etumpanisqhsan <5178> , not toward-waiting/receiving of the deliverence/apolutrwsin <629>, that of a better resurrection they be obtaining.
Luke 21:28 and these things beginning to happen bend yourselves back, and lift up your heads, because your deliverence/apolutrwsiV <629> doth draw nigh.'
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,285
2,868
59
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟142,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a direct answer to the question of the OP.

The Septuagint

from an online source...

Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term &#8220;Septuagint&#8221; means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.


The Septuagint is the OT text of Christ's time. All of his listeners would have been familiar with these books as their official Jewish canon.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

Tyndale

Veteran
Feb 3, 2007
1,920
127
United kingdom
✟10,061.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
Many years Tyndale,

I understand that we all have our views to support and thus nothing contradicting can step in the way.

It is obvious that Jude quoted from Enoch - I mean he says it himself.

No, I disagree. Just because a book is named Enoch, it doesn't mean the prophet Enoch wrote it. He couldn't have anyway as that book was written (150-80 B.C.). Jude was referring to what Enoch prophesied, not what the book Enoch says.

As far as you presentation that EYEWITNESSES are the writers of the Scripture, I think that you will find that that is not the case for both Ss. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses of what they wrote in their Gospels - so this rule of yours is obviously incorrect.

Luke 1 v [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke (Colossians 4:14,) was an eyewitness to Christ's teachings and life.

The gospel of Mark was written around 66-70 AD, and the author was also an eyewitness to Christ's teachings and life.

This is how the scripture was written, by eyewitnesses. Remember God doesn't change his ways (Malachi 3:6). He told Moses to write down a song (Deuteronomy 31:19-21) , he told Isaiah "Take thee a great roll, and write"...(8:1). he told Jeremiah also to "Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book" (30:2).

.....and Luke is no different, he even makes us aware of this in the opening verses.


Why would God contradict himself and change his method of writing scripture just to facilitate a book called Enoch?
 
Upvote 0

xristos.anesti

Veteran
Jul 2, 2005
1,790
224
✟10,525.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well dear brother you can disagree – St. Jude was referring to what Enoch prophesied which was recorded in the book of Enoch – as a part of the Jewish Tradition.


Luke 1 v [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke (Colossians 4:14,) was an eyewitness to Christ's teachings and life.

What does Col. 4, 14 has to do with this?

Anyway? Why did you cut the Luke 1 verses?

Why didn’t you post the complete narrative?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Lk. 1, 1-4)

It says JUST AS IT WAS HANDED DOWN TO US, BY THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

So, Luke was not an eyewitness, but it was traditioned, handed down (gr. &#928;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#948;&#959;&#963;&#945;&#957; ) - using Holy Apostolic Tradition - to him by those who were the eyewitnesses.

So, please do not cut the verses; that is not the way we should do things.

Again, your rule does not work – not only eyewitness were writers of the Scriptures.


The gospel of Mark was written around 66-70 AD, and the author was also an eyewitness to Christ's teachings and life.

St. Mark was not an eyewitness to all the events he spoke of, he might have seen some but did not see all. Actually the Holy Catholic Tradition always considered that St. Peter was the one who told St. Mark many of the things that he wrote.


This is how the scripture was written, by eyewitnesses. Remember God doesn't change his ways (Malachi 3:6). He told Moses to write down a song (Deuteronomy 31:19-21) , he told Isaiah "Take thee a great roll, and write"...(8:1). he told Jeremiah also to "Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book" (30:2).

Obviously not.


.....and Luke is no different, he even makes us aware of this in the opening verses.

Only if you cut the verse and make it sound like you want it to sound – as it was shown you are wrong. Sorry about that.

Why would God contradict himself and change his method of writing scripture just to facilitate a book called Enoch?

God does not contradict Himself, you do by cutting out parts of the verses and changing the meaning– thus God does not lie – someone else is.

If we are going to have honest discussion – I believe that cutting out parts of the Bible and changing the meaning should not be done.

If you wish to continue please refrain from doing so, for it does not show you to be an honest person, but the opposite.


Many years.
 
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

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term &#8220;Septuagint&#8221; means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

The Septuagint is the OT text of Christ's time. All of his listeners would have been familiar with these books as their official Jewish canon.

Forgive me...
So why should I trust their translation anymore than I trust others? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.