The history of how Sunday worship came about

LoveGodsWord said:

Sorry I do not believe these are scripture they are apocryphal. Do you know why?

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Here let me help. The books you listed are called by Catholics deuterocanonical—the secondary canon—and by Protestants apocryphal, not part of the canon. To Catholics they're as theologically valid as anything else; to Protestants, they're supposedly valid for instruction and whatnot, but ‘inferior’ in authority to the primary canon. Yet many Bibles aimed at Protestant audiences include the apocrypha, so they're hardly deleted.

As for the criterion of discrimination: the ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh; but when Christians first developed an official canon, Jews didn't have one—the ‘official canon’ concept was kind of novel. When Jews did get around to settling on a canon, they considered roughly the same set of books, but accepted only ones written in Hebrew. The ‘Catholic’ canon also includes some scriptures from Jewish diaspora communities originally composed in other languages (generally or maybe universally Greek, the scholarly lingua franca of the Roman Empire). Protestants excluded the ‘Old Testament’ texts that weren't included by the Jews (so, disregarding compilation and translation choices, the standard Protestant OT is exactly the same material as the Tanakh) and did not include the Greek texts as they were of unknown origins.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized as canonical books of the Bible the 39 Hebrew books recognized by the Jews and called by Christians the Old Testament, and the 27 Greek books universally accepted by Christians as the New Testament. In dispute were 12 books or parts of books written in Greek and referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, because their origins were “hidden”, that is, unknown. The fundamental difference is that the books of the Apocrypha is that there not in the Hebrew Bible. The books of the Apocrypha only exist in Greek; there are no Hebrew texts of these books. Obviously they do not belong to the Old Testament, but also, neither do they belong to the New Testament and this is the reason they are not included in the christian canon.

Hope this helps

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Here let me help. The books you listed are called by Catholics deuterocanonical—the secondary canon—and by Protestants apocryphal, not part of the canon. To Catholics they're as theologically valid as anything else; to Protestants, they're supposedly valid for instruction and whatnot, but ‘inferior’ in authority to the primary canon. Yet many Bibles aimed at Protestant audiences include the apocrypha, so they're hardly deleted.

As for the criterion of discrimination: the ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh; but when Christians first developed an official canon, Jews didn't have one—the ‘official canon’ concept was kind of novel. When Jews did get around to settling on a canon, they considered roughly the same set of books, but accepted only ones written in Hebrew. The ‘Catholic’ canon also includes some scriptures from Jewish diaspora communities originally composed in other languages (generally or maybe universally Greek, the scholarly lingua franca of the Roman Empire). Protestants excluded the ‘Old Testament’ texts that weren't included by the Jews (so, disregarding compilation and translation choices, the standard Protestant OT is exactly the same material as the Tanakh) and did not include the Greek texts as they were of unknown origins.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized as canonical books of the Bible the 39 Hebrew books recognized by the Jews and called by Christians the Old Testament, and the 27 Greek books universally accepted by Christians as the New Testament. In dispute were 12 books or parts of books written in Greek and referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, because their origins were “hidden”, that is, unknown. The fundamental difference is that the books of the Apocrypha is that there not in the Hebrew Bible. The books of the Apocrypha only exist in Greek; there are no Hebrew texts of these books. Obviously they do not belong to the Old Testament, but also, neither do they belong to the New Testament and this is the reason they are not included in the christian canon.

Hope this helps

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Here let me help. The books you listed are called by Catholics deuterocanonical—the secondary canon—and by Protestants apocryphal, not part of the canon. To Catholics they're as theologically valid as anything else; to Protestants, they're supposedly valid for instruction and whatnot, but ‘inferior’ in authority to the primary canon. Yet many Bibles aimed at Protestant audiences include the apocrypha, so they're hardly deleted.

As for the criterion of discrimination: the ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh; but when Christians first developed an official canon, Jews didn't have one—the ‘official canon’ concept was kind of novel. When Jews did get around to settling on a canon, they considered roughly the same set of books, but accepted only ones written in Hebrew. The ‘Catholic’ canon also includes some scriptures from Jewish diaspora communities originally composed in other languages (generally or maybe universally Greek, the scholarly lingua franca of the Roman Empire). Protestants excluded the ‘Old Testament’ texts that weren't included by the Jews (so, disregarding compilation and translation choices, the standard Protestant OT is exactly the same material as the Tanakh) and did not include the Greek texts as they were of unknown origins.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized as canonical books of the Bible the 39 Hebrew books recognized by the Jews and called by Christians the Old Testament, and the 27 Greek books universally accepted by Christians as the New Testament. In dispute were 12 books or parts of books written in Greek and referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, because their origins were “hidden”, that is, unknown. The fundamental difference is that the books of the Apocrypha is that there not in the Hebrew Bible. The books of the Apocrypha only exist in Greek; there are no Hebrew texts of these books. Obviously they do not belong to the Old Testament, but also, neither do they belong to the New Testament and this is the reason they are not included in the christian canon.

Hope this helps

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Sorry I do not believe these are scripture they are apocryphal. Do you know why?

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

So you use the Old Testament Canon which was chosen by the Jews who had rejected Christ and thus not led by the Holy Spirit, rather than the Canon chosen by the early Christians?

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

So you use the Old Testament Canon which was chosen by the Jews who had rejected Christ and thus not led by the Holy Spirit, rather than the Canon chosen by the early Christians?

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

The book, like the other Books of the Maccabees, was not included in Masoretic Hebrew canon, the Tanakh. It was included in the Greek Septuagint, known as the Alexandrian canon. For this reason, Jews and Protestants reject most of the doctrinal issues present in the work, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider the work to be deuterocanonical and part of the Bible. Some Protestants include 2 Maccabees as part of the biblical apocrypha, useful for reading in the church. Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. (2 Maccabees.wiki)

How would you know whether the two books (Maccabees) or anyone else for that matter know?

Your just tagging along behind a tradition based on what the Jews believe about the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is the genuine article, the original Old Testament. Both the eastern Orthodox and the Catholics were spot on. They both heavily followed church tradition which means they received, that same Old Testament. Down through the centuries they exclusively used only the Septuagint.

Don't pay any attention to the Protestants. They arrived far too late in Church history and the canon was accepted and established. In fact, the canon was decided over a thousand years before the Protestants first appeared on the map. The Septuagint was the official Old Testament in that canon.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

If you do not know perhaps you can pray about it.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Do I understand why?

You must be kidding me. Your church is the offspring of a Protestant church. From memory was it the Methodist Church?

The apostles used the Septuagint which is unfortunate for you and every other fundamentalist.

How do we know the apostles used the Septuagint?

Easy, read the apostles quotations in the Hebrew canon and then in the Septuagint.

You will come back proclaiming the Biblical canon, the Septuagint.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

So your agreeing with what I just posted to you (post # 460 linked). Thank you.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Septuagint canon. Matthew 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – behold, a “virgin” shall conceive.

Hebrew canon Isaiah 7:14 behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

You can make your choice on the basis of this verse and about twenty others.

As for me I will take the Septuagint any day of the week. The Hebrew canon attempted to deceive the reader in to thinking that Mary was not a virgin. Just a young woman the Hebrew canon declares.

There is no argument that the Protestants chose the wrong canon. That is why many of the quotations don't match what the apostles said in nearly 100 quotations.

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Here is what you said in post #460

As for the criterion of discrimination: the ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh

Incorrect LGW.

You need to do the research.

The apostles read and quoted from the Septuagint mostly and sometimes from the Hebrew canon.

You need to quote your sources.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Here is what you said in post #460

As for the criterion of discrimination: the ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh

Incorrect LGW.

You need to do the research.

The apostles read and quoted from the Septuagint mostly and sometimes from the Hebrew canon.

You need to quote your sources.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Please forgive me but I do not believe in your Catholic teachings.

Take Care.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Where did the Apostles quote the Septuagint?

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Prove it. You haven't

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Where did the Apostles quote the Septuagint? You mean the Tanakh?

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Catholics were not around when the Septuagint was translated into Greek.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Catholics were not around when the apostles quoted from the Septuagint.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Catholics were not even known during the first few centuries. The church in Rome existed but it had only a vote, no power to speak of.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Do you want a full list or some examples?

Click to expand...