• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Salvation for the Dead

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by notforgotten, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private


    If you want to know how Origen defines aionios, you'ld need to do a study of ALL his uses of the word, not just in one instance, from a mere English translation, which is itself indecisive. And, being a universalist, proves nothing about his use of the word in regards to punishment.

    The meaning of a word in any particular context requires you look at the context. The context of the quote you provide has nothing to do with punishment, so it is quite useless as regards determining Origen's view of the word in contexts regarding other subjects such as punishment, the 3 days(aionios) Jonah was in a sea creature, the amount of time(aionios) in the OT a man was to be a slave to another man, how long mountains would last(aionios) that are destroyed, etc.

    "In On Principles 3.3.5, Origen gives a clear sign that he understands aiôn in the sense of a succession of aiônes prior to the final apocatastasis, at which point one arrives at the true eternity, that is, aïdiotês. Eternity in the strict sense pertains, according to Origen, to the apocatastasis, not to the previous sequence of ages or aiônes. So too, Origen explains that Christ "reigned without flesh prior to the ages, and reigned in the flesh in the ages" (aiôniôs, adverb). Again, the "coming aiôn" indicates the next world (epi ton mellonta aiôna), where sinners will indeed be consigned to the pur aionion, that is, the fire that pertains to the future world; it may well last for a long time, but it is not, for Origen, eternal.

    "In this connection, it seems particularly significant that Origen calls the fire of damnation pur aiônion, but never pur aïdion. The explanation is that he does not consider this flame to be absolutely eternal: it is aiônion because it belongs to the next world, as opposed to the fire we experience in this present world, and it lasts as long as the aiônes do, in their succession. Similarly, Origen never speaks of thanatos aïdios, or of aïdia punishments and torments and the like, although he does speak of thanatos aiônios or death in the world to come (kolaseis aiônioi), i.e. punishment in the world to come.

    "Origen was deeply learned in both the Bible and the classical philosophical tradition; what is more, he maintained that damnation was not eternal, but served rather to purify the wicked, who would in the end be saved in the universal apocatastasis. His careful deployment of the adjectives aiônios and aïdios reflects, we have argued, both his sensitivity to the meaning of the latter among the Greek philosophers, and the distinction that is apparently observed in the use of these terms in the Bible. For Origen, this was further evidence in Scripture for the doctrine of universal salvation."

    "Terms for Eternity: Aiônios & aïdios" talk part 2

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
     
  2. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private

    Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

    10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

    Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
     
  3. Light of the East

    Light of the East Orthodox Inquirer Supporter

    +1,408
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    This goes for Hitler, Bundey, OJ, Nero, nobody that I would sentence to an "eternity" of torment.

    Ah, Grasshoppa! You are close to truth! Look, if you, as a fallible human being with passions and sinful desires like all of us, wouldn't sentence anyone to an eternity of screaming torment, how much more would God simply not do that? I think that part of our problem is that we tend to think of our Father in human terms, and He is way, WAY beyond that, including being impassible.

    The problem with this is:

    1/ I am human and not God

    Yes, the point I just made. If we as humans would not do that, if we would have a "breaking point" at which even we would say "That's ENOUGH! The debt is paid." then how much more the God who is described as love.

    2/ God knows what the just consequences are for each

    Which is EXACTLY the point regarding Patristic Universalism - there is a point at which the "debt" is paid. The punishment is fulfilled and to to anymore than that enters into the realm of injustice. Now you (and all who cleave to eternal conscious torment) must tell me what sin is it that is worthy of an eternity of shrieking pain? Is the murder of one person worthy of eternal death? 100? 1 million? 100 million? At what point do we cross over into the realm of the payment for that sin to be eternal? How do we define this, looking at it from our point of view?

    And our point of view is
    deeply flawed. You want to know just how deeply flawed? Men put children to death for stealing a loaf of bread because they were hungry. That is man's idea of "justice." Would God do such a thing? I think to insist that He would is a deep smear on His loving character.


    3/ The bible is totally silent on any hint that the eternal punishment is anything but eternal and no hint of a time limit or a time when the wrong has been atoned for.

    It is not. This is the very argument that is taking place right here and now over the Greek word "aionios" versus the Latin mistranslation of that word. The only thing I would agree with is that we have no idea how much "time" (if you can use such a concept in eternity) is given for each particular sin.

    Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, to speak of time as paying for sin brings it down to the aspect of legal payment for sin, which is not how we view the soul in the afterlife. Our view is that of the changing of the nous, the ontological change into divinity of which St. Athanasius spoke. So for us, the real question is this: how much "time" is required for a deeply flawed soul to be healed of its imperfections and become like Christ. That is the whole point of salvation for us and not some legal payment required by God.


    So, I can only go by what God has said in the Holy bible.

    The bottom line.... Now is the time for salvation. After death...it's too late.

    Speculation at best. Just as Patristic Universalism is speculation on the ability of the soul to repent after death and after being scourged by God's love in the next life.

    Any recourse for these unsaved people after that......we'll have to wait and see.
    However, if your going by the information we have... it doesn't look good for them.

    Not at all. Romans 2: 13-16 gives us a real clue, stating that those who have never heard the Gospel will still be saved if they obey the dictates of the Law as placed in their conscience by God. I would say that is extremely hopeful and points to a God who is very flexible in His love and His will that all be saved. It is man who lays down hard and fast "rules" for salvation and insists that they be kept to the letter.

    I remember a conversation with a fellow Baptist I was having one day after church. The discussion of the fate of the pagans who never heard of Christ came up, and while I cannot remember the exact words he said, the gist of it was "Too bad they haven't heard of Christ, but they are going to hell."

    In other words, "I got my salvation and tough cookies for everyone else who never heard."

    Sheeeeeesh!!!!
     
  4. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,451
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Repeating an argument which has already been refuted.
     
  5. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,451
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Total nonsense! Paul, contrasted aionios three times with temporal, momentary and earthly home something temporary. In none of the other occurrences of aionios in Paul's writings does he even come close to defining what aionios means as he does in this passage, three times.
    2 Corinthians 4:17-18
    (17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, [parautika] worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [aionios] weight of glory;
    (18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; [πρόσκαιρος] but the things which are not seen are eternal.[aionios]
    2 Corinthians 5:1
    (1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [aionios] in the heavens.
    Our earthly house is definitely temporary and in vss. 17-18 Paul has stated twice that "aionios" is the opposite of temporary/momentary. And notice early in this passage how Paul refers to our afflictions.
    G3910 παραυτίκα parautika
    Thayer Definition:
    1) for the moment
    Part of Speech: adverb
    G4340 πρόσκαιρος proskairos

    Thayer Definition:
    1) for a season
    2) enduring only for a while
    3) temporary
    Part of Speech: adjective
    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4314 and G2540
    Citing in TDNT: 3:463, 389
    Robertson's Word Pictures [taught graduate level Greek for 47 years]
    2 Corinthians 4:17
    Our light affliction which is for the moment (to parautika elaphron tēs thlipeseōs hēmōn). Literally, “for the moment (old adverb parautika, here only in N.T.) lightness (old word, in N.T. only here and Mat_11:30).”
    More and more exceedingly (kath' huperbolēn eis huperbolēn). Like piling Pelion on Ossa, “according to excess unto excess.” See note on 1Co_12:31.
    Eternal weight of glory (aiōnion baros doxēs). Careful balancing of words in contrast (affliction vs. glory, lightness vs. weight, for the moment vs. eternal).
     
  6. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    LOL. Keep telling yourself that.


    Your post demonstrated no evidence of that. Or do you mean that you couldn't understand what was written.

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
  7. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    God, not Rome, declares what a mortal sin was or is, and for which these men were executed for. Only by special pleading, making things up out of thin air, can you argue that they might have repented before their death.

    Meanwhile, requiring that they text explicitly state they were in Hell is not required, and I did not say it did, but that text explicitly states they executed for what is a a mortal sin in Scripture, and thus unless they repented - which is nowhere indicated, then thus they were in Hell. Why cannot you accept that? Do you really want to argue that this was not a mortal sin, a capital crime (Deuteronomy 7:25; 12:3; Exodus 32:20; 1Chronicles 14:12; Joshua 7:1-25)for which these men were executed?

    As for "nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just" being making things up out of thin air, instead your denial is what is out of thin air, since the text indeed states that,

    And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-44)

    Thus it was because he hoped that they that were slain should have risen again that he made the offering, that they would see the resurrection of the just. The NAB notes themselves state on this, "The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. (scripture)
    It means that if prayers could be efficacious for the dead who objectively were already in hell then Rome is wrong, but in the light of Scripture both Rome and 2Mac. are.
    Rather, what the evidence is against is that the church of Rome is distinctively the NT church.
    But what is the basis for your assurance of truth? For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    What? This is your answer? You actually think you can certainly get the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility and of that being essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and the church being supreme (above Scripture) authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," versus the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth? (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23)

    You must read into Scripture what is contrary to it in order to support Rome. Wholly inspired writings of God we ascertained and established as being so before a church of Rome presumed it was essential for this, historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    The as "without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better," (Heb. 7:7), so the church as an organization of fallible s
    God, not Rome, declares what a mortal sin was or is, and for which these men were executed for. Only by special pleading, making things up out of thin air, can you argue that they might have repented before their death.

    Meanwhile, requiring that they text explicitly state they were in Hell is not required, and I did not say it did, but that text explicitly states they executed for what is a a mortal sin in Scripture, and thus unless they repented - which is nowhere indicated, then thus they were in Hell. Why cannot you accept that? Do you really want to argue that this was not a mortal sin, a capital crime (Deuteronomy 7:25; 12:3; Exodus 32:20; 1Chronicles 14:12; Joshua 7:1-25)for which these men were executed?

    As for "nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just" being making things up out of thin air, instead your denial is what is out of thin air, since the text indeed states that,

    And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-44)

    Thus it was because he hoped that they that were slain should have risen again that he made the offering, that they would see the resurrection of the just. The NAB notes themselves state on this, "The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. (scripture)
    It means that if prayers could be efficacious for the dead who objectively were already in hell then Rome is wrong, but in the light of Scripture both Rome and 2Mac. are.
    Rather, what the evidence is against is that the church of Rome is distinctively the NT church.
    But what is the basis for your assurance of truth? For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    What? This is your answer? You actually think you can certainly get the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility and of that being essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and the church being supreme (above Scripture) authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," versus the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth. (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23)

    You must read into Scripture what is contrary to it in order to support Rome. Wholly inspired writings of God we ascertained and established as being so before a church of Rome presumed it was essential for this, historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    The as "without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better," (Heb. 7:7), so the church as an organization of fallible souls was blessed by infallible and wholly inspired-of-God (which even RC theology does not hold popes are when speaking) OT Scriptures, being prophetically doctrinally, built upon that Truth.





    ouls was blessed by infallible and wholly inspired-of-God (which even RC theology does not hold popes are when speaking), being prophetically doctrinally, built upon that Truth.
     
  8. notforgotten

    notforgotten Child of God Supporter

    800
    +515
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Here is a verse referencing hell without water,

    Luke 16:24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

    And, a verse referencing hell as a pit.

    Isaiah 14:15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

    I would just like to add a little personal commentary on hell. I have seen and spoke to thousands of these lost souls. People go "down" into hell because they worsen. The soul is in ruins. Is morally destroyed. And has no value or worth. The spirit was meant to be with God in the afterlife. And to go against this, is to go against all it was created for. Without salvation (divine restoration of the soul), the human spirit is liken a lying, deceiving, devil. It thirst's for all that God can give it. It has hatred in it's heart and gnashes it's teeth in anger. These are very sick people and are in need of salvation which can only be done with atonement through the divine doctor, Christ. And, needless to say, we would be just like them, if it wasn't for our faith in Him.

    Mathew 9:12-13. On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
     
  9. notforgotten

    notforgotten Child of God Supporter

    800
    +515
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    It was no deceiving spirit. My avatar is a painting of Jesus, by the world famous Akiane Kramarick, period.
     
  10. notforgotten

    notforgotten Child of God Supporter

    800
    +515
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    It is us who drink the "living water."

    John 4:14. but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

    Our thirsts are quenched through all that God will give us.
     
  11. Episaw

    Episaw Always learning

    +593
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Whose Akiane Kramarick? I have never heard of him and I am married to an artist.
     
  12. notforgotten

    notforgotten Child of God Supporter

    800
    +515
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Akiane Kramarick is a child prodigy. She's an artistic genius. It is said that some of her works have been inspired by God. Here's her website;

    Child Prodigy Akiane Kramarik Paintings - Official Art Gallery
     
  13. notforgotten

    notforgotten Child of God Supporter

    800
    +515
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
  14. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I don't know, but reference is made to this:

    1Jn.2:2 He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.…
     
  15. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,451
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    The book Heaven is Real is the story of a young boy who was critically ill in a hospital and had a near death experience. He experienced meeting his grandfather whom he had never met and also met Jesus.
    .....After he was released from the hospital he was talking to his mother and said "Do you know I have a sister?" His mother said of course you have an older sister. He said no I mean in heaven who died in your tummy. She asked him what was his sister's name he said she doesn't have one you never gave her a name. The mother had never told him that she had a still birth.
    .....His father showed him all the traditional pictures of Jesus, he said no that's not him. His father was looking up stories similar to his son's and came across the picture in Notforgotten's avatar. When the little boy saw the picture he said "That's him, that's Jesus." They had never met but Akiane painted a picture of Jesus who looked like the Jesus the boy had met in heaven.
     
  16. Ron Gurley

    Ron Gurley What U See is What U Get!

    +1,012
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Am I spiritually discerning this verse correctly?

    Hebrews 9:27(NASB)
    And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to "die" (Body/Soul combo DEATH) once
    and after this comes "JUDGMENT",(of their IMMORTAL SPIRITS)

    WHICH JUDGMENT??

    a. JUDGMENT of the NATIONS ...("ethnos=PEOPLES=societies = sheep/goats) ...Psalm 9:19 ; Matthew 25: 31-36

    b. JUDGMENT of the Believers' Works...1 Corinthians 3: 10-15 ; 2 Corinthians 5 : 6-10

    c. The GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT...sentencing of unbelievers...Revelation 20: 11-15 (NASB)

    d. BELIEVING SURVIVORS of the GREAT TRIBULATION...Revelation 7:9-17

    e. JUDGMENT of Fallen Spirits: Revelation 20:1-10

    f. JUDGMENT of the NATION Israel....the Major Prophets + Matthew 19:27-30 (NASB)

    John 5:24
    “Truly, truly, I say to you,
    he who hears My word,
    and believes Him who sent Me,
    has eternal (spiritual) life, and
    does not come into JUDGMENT,(of Believers' SPIRITUAL POSITION in Christ!)
    but "has passed" out of death into life. (PAST completed aorist tense!)

    John 3
    18 He who believes in Him is NOT judged;
    he who does not believe "has been" judged already,
    because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  17. Episaw

    Episaw Always learning

    +593
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Definitely a remarkable painter. Those of people are very lifelike and I do like her use of green as it is my favorite colour.
     
  18. Christodoulos

    Christodoulos Member

    234
    +84
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Single
    THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

    • The so called "Protestant" Canon of the Old Testament has 39 Books, which are the same that the Hebrew Bible Canon has, which is 22 Books. Though there are different number of Books, there is no difference in the content, as it is only the way the Books have been grouped, in the Canons. The Hebrew Canon has not changed from the time when the Books of the Old Testament were complied into one Book. There is no evidence to show that at any time the Hebrew Canon ever had more, or less Books. Any such suggestions are not based on facts, but conjecture, and must be rejected. The evidence below shows the exact number of the Books in the Hebrew Canon. The early evidence of the Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived between 37-100 A.D., during the life-time of the Apostles, is that of only 22 Books. This in itself is conclusive.
    • The next "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, is from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which was the work of Jewish scholars, and completed in about 150 B.C. There are additional books in this translation of the Greek Old Testament, which some argue to be the original "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, as do the Roman Catholic church. It is wrongly assumed, that as the Septuagint was based on Hebrew manuscripts, and it differs from the Hebrew Canon of today, which is said to be of a later date, that the Septuagint books have to be right. It is admitted that the Septuagint does have additional books, which are not found in the Hebrew Bible at any time. However, what we are not told by those who prefer the Septuagint Old Testament, is that what we have today, is not the same as what the original Septuagint had, as its books. The Septuagint has over the centuries. been through a great number of "revisions", starting from the 2nd century A.D. The scholar Origen, who lived between 185-254 A.D., said that there were so many different "readings" to some of the text of the Septuagint, when he was working on a Greek translation. As the evidence below shows, there are some "books" that are included in the Septuagint we have today, which could not have formed part of the original work, which was completed by 150 B.C.. 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Wisdom, were written after the Septuagint was completed, by between 50-100 years, which can only mean that they could not have been in the original Septuagint, but included in one of its "revisions". This in itself shows beyond any doubt, that the "books" in the Septuagint that we have today, and what Jerome, and later the Roman Catholic church, used, are not part of any original "canon", either Hebrew, or Greek, and therefore cannot be included with the Books of the Old Testament that are established in the Hebrew Canon.
    • We next have the Latin "canon" of the Old Testament Books, which is from the translation known as the "Latin Vulgate", which is the work of the scholar, Jerome, who lived between 347-420 A.D. Jerome's work was originally based on only the Hebrew Canon Books of the Old Testament, as he rejected the Septuagint, with its additional books. He based his version on the Hebrew manuscripts of his time, and also, in his original work, has the same number of Books, as does the Hebrew Canon. His objection and reasons can be seen below. Because of the fact that the Old Latin version of the Old Testament, which was from a century before Jerome, did include the additional books, being based on the Septuagint, and was read by some in the Church, that Jerome translated these books into Latin, but stressed that they were not for the purpose of "doctrine", but could be read for edification. Like the Septuagint, Jerome's Latin Bible went through a great number of "revisions", and it was then that these additional books were included into the Latin Old Testament. Even though the Old Latin version was based on the Septuagint, the inclusion of these additional books, could not have been from the original Septuagint, as it did not contain these books, as their dates excludes them.
    THE HEBREW CANON

    From the Jewish Encyclopaedia

    "The Jewish canon comprises twenty-four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles). Samuel and Kings form but a single book each, as is seen in Aquila's Greek translation. The "twelve" prophets were known to Ecclus. (Sirach) as one book (xlix. 10), and the separation of Ezra from Nehemiah is not indicated in either the Talmud or the Masorah. A Bible codex written in Spain in 1448 divides Samuel, Kings, and Ezra into two books each (Ginsburg, l.c. p. 586). These books are classified and arranged into three subdivisions, "Torah," "Prophets," and "Hagiographa"; " (BIBLE CANON - JewishEncyclopedia.com)

    Josephus - Jewish Historian. 1st Century A.D (against Apion I.7-8)

    "And if any of these have been transgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves at the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications. And this is justly, or rather necessarily done: because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer; nor is there any disagreement in what is written. They being only prophets that have written the original and eldest accounts of things, as they learned them of God himself, by inspiration: and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

    For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For ’tis no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure wracks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres; that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them. Whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account: no nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed. For they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them. And they have justly the same opinion of the elder writers: since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present; nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them. Examples of which may be had in this late war of ours: where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned; or having been near them when the actions were done: but these men put a few things together, by hearsay; and insolently abuse the world; and call these writings by the name of Histories. (Josephus: Against Apion I)

    From Catholic Faith and Reason

    "Toward the end of the first century A.D. at Jamnia, they decided that their Bible consisted only of books written up to the time of Ezra, when prophecy was deemed to have ceased; and this criterion, though not applied uniformly, excluded the books of more recent origin which were on the whole less in accord with the Pharisaic outlook. the need for a decision was forced upon the Jews because of the growing controversies with Christians; and besides delimiting the Canon of Scripture they also not long afterward condemned the Greek Septuagint translation as inaccurate" (Jerome Bible Commentary, Introduction, The Canon of the Old Testament)

    From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

    "The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

    From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

    The canon among the Palestinian Jews (protocanonical books). It has already been intimated that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, Hellenist, Jews. The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kéthubim, i.e. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This triplication is ancient; it is supposed as long-established in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of unwritten sacred laws reduced to writing, c. A.D. 200. A grouping closely akin to it occurs in the New Testament in Christ's own words, Luke 24:44: "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Going back to the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, prefixed to it about 132 B.C., we find mentioned "the Law, and the Prophets, and others that have followed them". The Torah, or Law, consists of the five Mosaic books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets were subdivided by the Jews into the Former Prophets [i.e. the prophetico-historical books: Josue, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel (I and II Kings), and 1 and 2 Kings (III and IV Kings)] and the Latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve minor Prophets, counted by the Hebrews as one book). The Writings, more generally known by a title borrowed from the Greek Fathers, Hagiographa (holy writings), embrace all the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible. Named in the order in which they stand in the current Hebrew text, these are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, or II Esdras, Paralipomenon." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
    From Global Catholic Network

    "During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

    The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)." (James Akin)

    THE GREEK CANON

    From Sir Frederic Kenyon

    "This, however, is merely an exaggeration of the original story, which is in itself mostly legendary, though containing a substratum of truth. First it should be noticed that Aristeas is speaking of the Greek Pentateuch, and properly the term 'Septuagint' should be confined to this, though following early Christian usage it is applied to the Greek Bible as a whole. Again, it may be accepted that a Greek translation of the Law was already in existence by about 250 b.c., or even earlier, and that it was sponsored by Jewish authorities at Alexandria. But whether this official version was promulgated at that time, or nearer to that of Aristeas himself (c. 130-100 b.c.) is a question which will be referred to later. On the other hand, it is clear that the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian as the Letter of Aristeas states, and in the first instance for Jews, either for use in the synagogue in public worship or for private study. The other books were added later, by different translators at different times; the Prophets by c. 150, the Hagiographa by the beginning of the Christian era. As we have seen, the grandson of ben Sira found not only the Law, but the Prophets and "the rest of the books" in Greek c. 132 b.c., and he also notes that they "have no small difference when they are spoken in their own language "-i.e. that they differed to some extent from the Hebrew. Indeed the style of the translation differs so markedly in different books as to prove that the whole Old Testament cannot have been the work of a single group of translators. The Pentateuch itself bears evidence of different hands. The prophetic books are much freer, and this is especially noticeable in the case of Isaiah, which often defeated the translators, who took refuge in paraphrase. The 'Septuagint' text of Daniel, on the other hand, was replaced in nearly all Christian copies by the version of Theodotion (or that later revised by Theodotion) because of its divergence from the Hebrew" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p.99)

    From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

    "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. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bce and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bce." (Septuagint | biblical literature)

    From Bible Odyssey (on date written)

    "Old Greek (OG) or Septuagint

    The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Old Greek (OG), the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, for the use of the Greek-speaking Jewish community there. At first, just the Torah was translated, in the third century B.C.E.; the rest of the biblical books were translated later. The whole Hebrew Bible was likely translated into ancient Greek by the middle of the second century B.C.E." (What Are the Earliest Versions and Translations of the Bible?)

    From Global Catholic Network (for books in LXX)

    "The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D." (EWTN.com - The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.)

    From Catholic Education (for books in LXX)

    "The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community." (5 Myths about 7 Books)

    From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

    The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

    The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.

    The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

    BOOKS OF MACCABEES (DATES WRITTEN)

    From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

    "First Maccabees was written about 100 B.C., in Hebrew, but the original has not come down to us. Instead, we have an early, pre-Christian, Greek translation full of Hebrew idioms" (scripture)

    From Catholic News Agency

    “I Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: (323-104 BC) - (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/bible/introduction-to-the-old-testament/i-maccabees/)

    II Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: 180-161 BC - (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/bible/introduction-to-the-old-testament/ii-maccabees/)

    From Catholic Answers

    "As far as the dates of composition are concerned, these can be taken as approximately 100 B.C. for the first and 124 B.C. for the second, on the basis of the information given in the first letter they refer to (2 Mace. 1:9)." (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/1-2-maccabees)

    From Encyclopaedia Biblica
    On I Maccabees. "The book must, therefore, have been completed before the year 63 B.C." (vol. III. 2859)

    On I Maccabees "It seems therefore most probable, on the whole, that the epitomist put forth his work near the close of the last century B.C." (vol. III. 2744)

    From Professor F F Bruce

    "1 Maccabees is our principal source for the attempt by Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the Jewish religion and the consequent rising of the Hasmonaean family and establishment of their dynasty; it carries the story down to the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.), and is written with a pronounced pro-Hasmonaean bias. It was written either towards the end of the second century B.C. or in the earlier part of the first century, and although it is no longer extant in any earlier form than the Greek version, it was certainly written originally in Hebrew. The Greek text bears several marks of translation from a Hebrew original, and we have a statement by Jerome that he found this book in Hebrew.

    2 Maccabees is not an original work; it is an abridgment of a longer history written in Greek some time about the middle of the first century B.C. by a Jew of Cyrene named Jason. The bookrelates certain incidents from the persecution under Antiochus and the Hasmonaean revolt from a Pharisaic point of view, with marked emphasis on such things as the sanctity of the Temple, the observance of the Sabbath and the certainty of a blessed resurrection for the martyrs. Its moralizing tendency is indulged at the expense of historical reality; as a source-book of the history of the period it is of much inferior value of 1 Maccabees." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 156)

    BOOK OF BARUCH

    From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

    "A brief introduction reports that Baruch wrote the book five years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonia in 586 bc. A long prayer (1:15–3:8) is a national confession of sins similar to the lamentation in chapter nine of the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The original Hebrew text perhaps dates from the late 2nd century bc. In the next section, a poem identifies God with universal wisdom and names the Judaic Law as God’s gift of wisdom to men (3:9–4:4). In poems of lamentation and consolation that follow (4:5–5:9), Jerusalem is personified as a widow who weeps for her lost children, and God speaks words of comfort to the Jews. These latter poems may date from the 1st century bc." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Baruch)

    From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

    Scholarship has shown that this books is not genuine

    "It is certain that this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a writing wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek manuscripts that have Baruch have not the "Epistle", others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immediately before the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the time-honoured view that the great prophet is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but infamous, worship of the Babylonian gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer. 13:5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of Jeremiah to the Euphrates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain number of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremiah is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos, that is, inscribed with a false name. However this may be, an important study of the Canon of Holy Writ proves that, despite the assertions of Protestants to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the Church as an inspired work." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02319c.htm)

    From Professor F F Bruce

    "Baruch purports to be the work of Jeremiah's friend of that name, but actually belongs to a much later date, shortly before or shortly after the beginning of the Christian era. It contains a confession of national sin, a homily on wisdom, which is identified with the law, and a promise of deliverance and restoration. An independent composition appended to Baruch is the 'Epistle of Jeremiah', which contains a warning against idolatry." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 160)

    THE BOOK OF WISDOM
    From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

    "The Book of Wisdom was written about fifty years before the coming of Christ" (http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/0)

    From The Jewish Encyclopaedia

    "This places the date of the book, or at least that of the first part, with certainty in the first century B.C." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14951-wisdom-of-solomon-book-of-the#anchor6)

    From Early Jewish Writings

    "Several factors point to Alexandria in Egypt as the place of composition: the use of Greek, the philosophical concepts, the focus on the exodus, the polemic against Egyptian animal-worship, and so on. A date in the first century B.C.E. seems most likely, though any time from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. is possible. Efforts to link it with a specific crisis in the history of the Jewish community at Alexandria such as the threat posed by the cult of the Roman emperor Caligula (37-41 C.E.; see 14:17) have not won much support." (Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, pp. 55-56)" (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/wisdom.html)

    THE LATIN CANON

    From Global Catholic Network

    "It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

    Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not." (https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM)

    The author of this article, James Akin, quotes from Dr J N D Kelly, but not when he does not agree with him.

    Dr Kelly wrote of Jerome, "Jerome, too, influenced by his long residence in Palestine as well as by purely scholarly considerations, declared about 391 that anything not in the Hebrew was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', and did not belong to the canon; somewhat later, in 398, he conceded that the Church read some of the books for edification, but not to support doctrine" (Early Christian Doctrines, page 55)

    From Catholic Culture

    "Our modern Vulgate text is therefore composed of the following parts:

    1. The New Testament.
      1. Gospels revised according to the original Greek.
      2. The other books of the New Testament, which also were probably revised, but this is by no means certain.

    2. The Old Testament.
      1. The protocanonical books, excepting the Psalter, are directly from the Hebrew (the Gallican Psalter is according to the Hexapla).
      2. The deuterocanonical books.
        1. Tobias and Judith are from the Aramaic.
        2. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Machabees I and II were not revised by Jerome, but taken from the Old Latin, which is based upon the Septuagint.
        3. Additions in Daniel from Theodotian and those of Esther from the Septuagint. " (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470)
    From The Later Christian Fathers

    "Jerome

    I. Scripture Apocrypha

    [The Canon of Scripture: Five books of Closes (Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut.); the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kingdoms (2), Kings (2), Isa., Jer., Ezek., the Twelve Prophets; Hagiographa: Job, Ps., Solomon (Prov., Eccl., Song of Songs), Dan., Chron. (2), Ezr. (2), Esther.]

    This prologue can be attached, as a kind of helmeted introduction, to all the books which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, so that we can be sure that anything outside this list is to be classed among the apocrypha. Thus Wisdom, generally entitled Of Solomon', the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias [sic], and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon. I found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew. The second is in Greek, a fact which can also be deduced from the style. prolog, in Sam. et Mai.

    We have the authentic book of Jesus son of Sirach, and another pseud-epigraphic work, entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. I found the first in Hebrew, with the title, 'Parables', not Ecclesiasticus, as in Latin versions. ... The second finds no place in Hebrew texts, and its style is redolent of Greek eloquence: a number of ancient writers assert that it is a work of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture; so let the Church read these two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines. praef. in lib. Sal." (Henry Bettenson, page 187)
     
  19. Ron Gurley

    Ron Gurley What U See is What U Get!

    +1,012
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    WHICH JUDGMENT??
    Spirits are IMMORTAL!
    Genesis 1:27(NASB)
    27 God created man (MANKIND) in His own (SPIRITUAL) image,
    in the image of God He created him;
    male and female He created them.
     
  20. Episaw

    Episaw Always learning

    +593
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    And the purpose of your post is......
     
Loading...