The history of how Sunday worship came about

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Tanakh is the Hebrew Old testament, the Masoretic text.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation.

Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region.

That is not true. Much of the books of the Apocrypha were written in Greek of questionable origin, not Hebrew that is why they are not considered conical (post # 460 linked).
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So your agreeing with what I just posted to you (post # 460 linked). Do you know what the Septuagint was a copy of? Also, did you know that many of these apocrypha books are not included in some copies of the Septuagint? You do know that many of the apocrypha books are not included in some copies of the Septuagint right? I gather from your post here that you are Catholic and that you do not believe God had His hand on the reformation. So do you still believe in indulgences and Mary worship?
Nice try but not even close. I have a soft spot for Inquisitions though, only fire purifies and refines completely.

The Masoretic text, Hebrew Old Testament, underwent many additions and changes to the text.

The Septuagint was translated outside of Israel and did not go through these changes.

That is why the apostles quotes often don't match the Masoretic Old testament. Some of the quotes are not even in the Masoretic text.

Why would an apostle quote a Hebrew quotation for a Greek audience?

The apostles used the quotations from the Greek translation, the Septuagint.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Nice try but not even close. I have a soft spot for Inquisitions though, only fire purifies and refines completely.

The Masoretic text, Hebrew Old Testament, underwent many additions and changes to the text.

The Septuagint was translated outside of Israel and did not go through these changes.

That is why the apostles quotes often don't match the Masoretic Old testament. Some of the quotes are not even in the Masoretic text.

Why would an apostle quote a Hebrew quotation for a Greek audience?

The apostles used the quotations from the Greek translation, the Septuagint.
Once again, are you seriously going to try and tell me that Paul the Apostles who was a Hebrew Pharisee and expert on Jewish law and the Hebrew bible was quoting the Septuagint?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That is not true. Much of the books of the Apocrypha were written in Greek of questionable origin, not Hebrew that is why they are not considered conical (post # 460 linked).
The Hebrew canon, Masoretic text, was not canon until the ninth century from memory. That's when the Jews accepted the Hebrew canon as scripture.

Unfortunately, the Hebrew canon did not exist when the church formed it's canon. You have a difference of over five hundred years between the church canon and the Jewish canon.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Again you need to prove your claims here which you haven't. Are you seriously going to try and tell me that Paul the Apostles who was a Hebrew Pharisee and expert on Jewish law and the Hebrew bible was quoting the Septuagint?
You bet, put your house on it.

Paul was the apostle to the Greek speaking world.

Of course Paul read and quoted from the Greek translation. Paul could not give the Corinthians a Hebrew quotation. Think about it LGW.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Again you need to prove your claims here which you haven't. Are you seriously going to try and tell me that Paul the Apostles who was a Hebrew Pharisee and expert on Jewish law and the Hebrew bible was quoting the Septuagint?
Paul was born in Tarsus and was a fluent Greek speaker. Tarsus was not in Israel.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Hebrew canon, Masoretic text, was not canon until the ninth century from memory. That's when the Jews accepted the Hebrew canon as scripture.

Unfortunately, the Hebrew canon did not exist when the church formed it's canon. You have a difference of over five hundred years between the church canon and the Jewish canon.

Again you need to prove your claims here which you haven't. You keep on avoiding my questions to you. As posted earlier, are you seriously going to try and tell me that Paul the Apostles who was a Hebrew Pharisee and expert on Jewish law and the Hebrew bible was quoting the Septuagint? You also know right that the old testament scriptures we have today are taken from the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible right? However there has been some minor changes to a few scriptures adjusted to conform to the Greek LXX but as posted to you earlier most of our old testament that we have in our bibles today is from the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism (the Masorectic text).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Hebrew canon, Masoretic text, was not canon until the ninth century from memory. That's when the Jews accepted the Hebrew canon as scripture.
This should matter why? It doesn't
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Paul was born in Tarsus and was a fluent Greek speaker. Tarsus was not in Israel.
Regardless he was a Hebrew and a Pharisee of the Pharisees and an expert in Hebrew law was he not? Why do you think he would be quoting from the Septuagint when he was an expert in the Hebrew bible?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Regardless he was a Hebrew and a Pharisee of the Pharisees and an expert in Hebrew law was he not? Why do you think he would be quoting from the Septuagint when he was an expert in the Hebrew bible?
You keep avoiding this?

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

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

Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

Matthew and Luke both refer to the VIRGIN giving birth. The Masoretic (Hebrew) text indicates that no miracle took place because Mary was just a young woman.

Why do the authors of Matthew and Luke state a 'VIRGIN' birth when the Masoretic text says she was not a virgin?
 
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

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Regardless he was a Hebrew and a Pharisee of the Pharisees and an expert in Hebrew law was he not? Why do you think he would be quoting from the Septuagint when he was an expert in the Hebrew bible?
How would you know which Old Testament Paul read?

We know the apostles quoted from the Septuagint.

Why support a very late Jewish text over a much earlier photograph of that Jewish text (200 BC)?

The Jews suffered at the hands of the Gentile Christians for many centuries. They took it out on the Hebrew text itself, they modeled their text in their own image.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This should matter why? It doesn't
It does matter because the Christian Bible was canon way before the Masoretic text.

You deeply misunderstand the origin of the Christian Bible.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
LoveGodsWord said: Regardless he was a Hebrew and a Pharisee of the Pharisees and an expert in Hebrew law was he not? Why do you think he would be quoting from the Septuagint when he was an expert in the Hebrew bible?
Your response here..
You keep avoiding this? Septuagint canon. Matthew 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew canon Isaiah 7:14 behold, a “young woman” shall conceive. Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” Matthew and Luke both refer to the VIRGIN giving birth. The Masoretic (Hebrew) text indicates that no miracle took place because Mary was just a young woman. Why do the authors of Matthew and Luke state a 'VIRGIN' birth when the Masoretic text says she was not a virgin?
Well that is not true. I have not avoided anything. It is you that is avoiding not responding to the post you are quoting from. The content of your post here has already been discussed in a previous post when discussing where the old testament Canon came from in post # 487 linked.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
How would you know which Old Testament Paul read?
Your the one claiming the Apostles all quoted the Septuagint not me. I just pointed out to you that much of the new testament scriptures were provided by Paul the Apostle who was a Pharisee who was an expert in the Hebrew scriptures.
Why support a very late Jewish text over a much earlier photograph of that Jewish text (200 BC)?
Because as posted earlier what made up the Mesoretic text was the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh which was around way before the Septuagint.
The Jews suffered at the hands of the Gentile Christians for many centuries. They took it out on the Hebrew text itself, they modeled their text in their own image.
See post # 487 linked.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It does matter because the Christian Bible was canon way before the Masoretic text. You deeply misunderstand the origin of the Christian Bible.
Sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree. The Mesoretic text is made up from the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh which was around way before the bible canon. The Mesoretic text and what it was made up of however as I posted earlier was not decided upon by the Jews of course until after the Canon of the bible was decided on. I believe the Canon of the bible as we have it today is just the way God planned it.

As posted in my earlier post to you the books you listed earlier 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, the Jews didn't have one—the ‘official canon’ concept was kind of novel until the development of the Hebrew bible called the Mesoretic text. When Jews did get around to settling on a canon (Mesoretic text), they considered roughly the same set of books as the official Christian Canon of the old testament, but accepted only ones written in Hebrew with some Aramaic (Danial and Ezra). 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. These 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.

I guess from reading your posts that you do not believe God organized the Protestant reformation from the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which of course if you want to believe this it is between you and God. I believe God's Word is the bible as we have been given it today and everything is as it should be and have explained why to you already. It seems we are just going around in circles now and going off topic to the OP. So we will agree to disagree. Please let's stay on topic now. If you want to discuss it further open up a new thread and send me a link.

Take Care. :wave:
 
Last edited:
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

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I told you I would get back to you, but @LoveGodsWord already responded which I agree with him.

Hello Dan, I respectfully disagree with your post here but please allow me to explain why I disagree from the scriptures if it might be helpful for you. I believe your post here is trying to explain away James 2:16-26 by teaching the dead faith of devils James talks about in James 2:17-20 over genuine faith that works by love that leads to believing and following what Gods Word says.
I did not explain away James 2:14-26 at all and I interpreted James 2:17-20 in context and I also properly harmonized scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. I never said anything against faith that works through love (Galatians 5:6) and the love of God has been poured out in our (believers) hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:5) Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7) We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19) So the dead faith of devils (James 2:19) that James talks about is not genuine faith that works by love and perverting the gospel by teaching "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" is not believing and following what God's Word says. (Galatians 1:6-9)

I think your mistake here, if it might be helpful to the conversation is that in your post here your mixing up justification (faith alone in what God's Word says) with sanctification (following what God's Word says).
It's not me who is mistaken here and it's works-salvationists who typically confuse justification with sanctification and end up putting the cart before the horse. Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is substantiated, evidenced by works. (James 2:14-26) Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1); yet faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony* :)

According to James no one has genuine saving faith if they do not have the fruit of faith which leads to obedience to what Gods' Word says
According to James, we show our faith by our works. (James 2:18) Obedience/works which follows saving faith in Christ is the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our faith, but not the essence of our faith and also not the basis or means by which we obtain salvation. Seeking salvation by works is not obedience to what God's Word says.

Ephesians 2:5 - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.

John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

These many people in Matthew 7:22 had the wrong foundation. They were trusting in their works to save them and NOT IN CHRIST ALONE. Jesus never knew them which means they were never saved.

As James says faith without obedience to what God's Word says is simply the dead faith of the devils *James 2:17-20; 26.
The heart of the issue as to why the devils are not obedient to what God's Word says is although they believe "mental assent" that "there is one God," they do not believe in/have faith in/trust in/reliance in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, they do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan (and not in Jesus) as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.

You may also want to have a read of Hebrews 11.
I have numerous times. In Hebrews 11:1, we read that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Works-salvationists don't seem to make a distinction between faith "and" works. In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurrences that is was "by" or "out of" faith, not faith is in essence, these acts of obedience/works. Their faith was genuine and it was shown by their actions (works) so all of these works accomplished in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, but those works are not the essence of faith, but are the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand. We are saved through faith at it's origin and not at some time later, based on the merits of our works. Faith is the root of salvation and works which follow are the fruit. No fruit at all demonstrates there is no root.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I did not explain away James 2:14-26 at all and I interpreted James 2:17-20 in context and I also properly harmonized scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. I never said anything against faith that works through love (Galatians 5:6) and the love of God has been poured out in our (believers) hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:5) Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7) We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19) So the dead faith of devils (James 2:19) that James talks about is not genuine faith that works by love and perverting the gospel by teaching "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" is not believing and following what God's Word says. (Galatians 1:6-9)

It's not me who is mistaken here and it's works-salvationists who typically confuse justification with sanctification and end up putting the cart before the horse. Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is substantiated, evidenced by works. (James 2:14-26) Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1); yet faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony* :)
True and straight as an arrow. Amen.

Why people cannot see this in the scripture baffles me.

Colossians 2:2-4
That their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I did not explain away James 2:14-26 at all and I interpreted James 2:17-20 in context and I also properly harmonized scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. I never said anything against faith that works through love (Galatians 5:6) and the love of God has been poured out in our (believers) hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:5) Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7) We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19) So the dead faith of devils (James 2:19) that James talks about is not genuine faith that works by love and perverting the gospel by teaching "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" is not believing and following what God's Word says. (Galatians 1:6-9)

It's not me who is mistaken here and it's works-salvationists who typically confuse justification with sanctification and end up putting the cart before the horse. Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is substantiated, evidenced by works. (James 2:14-26) Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1); yet faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony* :)

According to James, we show our faith by our works. (James 2:18) Obedience/works which follows saving faith in Christ is the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our faith, but not the essence of our faith and also not the basis or means by which we obtain salvation. Seeking salvation by works is not obedience to what God's Word says.

Ephesians 2:5 - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. *We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works.

John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

These many people in Matthew 7:22 had the wrong foundation. They were trusting in their works to save them and NOT IN CHRIST ALONE. Jesus never knew them which means they were never saved.

The heart of the issue as to why the devils are not obedient to what God's Word says is although they believe "mental assent" that "there is one God," they do not believe in/have faith in/trust in/reliance in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, they do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan (and not in Jesus) as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.

I have numerous times. In Hebrews 11:1, we read that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Works-salvationists don't seem to make a distinction between faith "and" works. In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurrences that is was "by" or "out of" faith, not faith is in essence, these acts of obedience/works. Their faith was genuine and it was shown by their actions (works) so all of these works accomplished in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, but those works are not the essence of faith, but are the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand. We are saved through faith at it's origin and not at some time later, based on the merits of our works. Faith is the root of salvation and works which follow are the fruit. No fruit at all demonstrates there is no root.

So then Dan I take it we are in agreement as all you have posted here pretty much agrees with what has already been shared with you except for the untruthful claims you have been making as to what it is we actually believe. So what are you arguing about then and why are you trying to claim that we believe in things we have never said or believe?

Let me post this one more time so you might know exactly what we believe so you can stop telling everyone what we do not believe. According to the scriptures, we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. Obedience to God's law is not how we are saved because all of us have already broken the law and are under it's penalty of condemnation and death *Romans 3:9-23; 2 Corinthians 3:3-11. So it is by God's grace through faith that we are saved through Gods forgiveness of our sins. According to the scriptures, obedience to Gods' law therefore is the fruit of genuine faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 as we believe and follow his word *John 10:26-27.

If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50; Hebrews 10:26-27. Therefore we do not abolish God's law through faith like some people teach but God's law is established in the heart by faith that works by love *Romans 3:31; 1 John 5:3-4; Romans 13:8-10. According to the scriptures, sin (breaking God' commandments and not believing and following God's Word) is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil *1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14. Therefore says Jesus you shall know them (who is from God and who is not) by their fruit. *Matthew 7:16-20; John 15:1-6; 1 John 2:3-4. According to the scriptures genuine faith is not separate from the fruit of obedience to Gods' Word. Anything else as James says is the dead faith of devils *James 2:16-27.

Do you believe what has been posted here?

Please stop making claims and accusations no one believes as it is not being truthful in our discussions. If no one believes in works salvation please do not pretend they they do.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Nice try but not even close. I have a soft spot for Inquisitions though, only fire purifies and refines completely.

The Masoretic text, Hebrew Old Testament, underwent many additions and changes to the text.

The Septuagint was translated outside of Israel and did not go through these changes.

That is why the apostles quotes often don't match the Masoretic Old testament. Some of the quotes are not even in the Masoretic text.

Why would an apostle quote a Hebrew quotation for a Greek audience?

The apostles used the quotations from the Greek translation, the Septuagint.

Indeed, the Septuagint is superior in most respects; the only cases where I think the MT has a better reading is in Psalm 1 and Psalm 23 (specifically, as rendered in the KJV). Normally I use the Jordanville Psalter, which is the Coverdale Psalter corrected against the Septuagint.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: klutedavid
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

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You bet, put your house on it.

Paul was the apostle to the Greek speaking world.

Of course Paul read and quoted from the Greek translation. Paul could not give the Corinthians a Hebrew quotation. Think about it LGW.

Indeed, it seems unlikely that St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, would quote from a version of Scripture they could not read, that also did not yet exist. And there were several different versions of the Hebraic text, five of which Origen assembled with the Septuagint in the world’s first known parallel Bible, the Hexapla, which is sadly tragically lost (thus we no longer have Symacchus and other variant texts; we have basically the Hebrew text as it was preserved in the Vulgate and the Peshitta, the Hebrew text as it was preserved in Ge’ez by the Ethiopians, who were Jews until mostly converting en masse to Christianity, and the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which in several cases validate Septuagint readings, Enoch, etc.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0