Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is used more often in the NT than the Masoretic.

So the writers of the NT must have been wrong per the standard SS adherents are demonstrating here.

Still no deutero quotes in the NT.

It's like the NT, for years many thought Clement of ROme's letter "scripture". We know better. Or John of Damascus lists a letter that no one regards as NT scripture. Folks have opinions, doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Thekla]

So what?

(As if it mattered - AT ALL) Is there even one example of some DEUTERO book being specifically quoted from and referenced specifically as "Scripture?"

It is referenced - you can of course find the information on the internet.
Can you show me a direct quote or reference for every book of the Masoretic OT - ie does your OT meet your own standard ?

Again, I DO appreciate your dismay over the reality that NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. But again, I honestly don't think it should cause you such great concern (I've read Psalm 151). But take your grave concern over this to a thread about that. Start a thread "Why Does None Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture" I will post in it, I promise. And perhaps give you some comfort on that point, you should not be so concerned. This thread is not about your concern over that.

I'm not dismayed, as I have said before.
Nor do I need your comfort, thank-you for your offer, but you seem to misunderstand what I have posted or perhaps fancy that you "see" within me.

It's not called "Sola LXX"
It's not called "Solum Novum Testimentum."
It's not called "The Rule of the Old Testament."
It's not called "The Rule of the Two Tablets of Moses."
It's called "The Rule of SCRIPTURE" (aka Sola SCRIPTURA)

But it is called Sola Scriptura, yet on the matter of what is Scripture you ignore or discount what the writers of NT Scripture deemed to be Scripture.

How is that using Scripture as a norm, when you doubt the very writers who wrote it ?

Frankly, I don't know how it's even possible to know what books Abraham or Moses of Josiah or Micah or John the Baptist or Jesus or Paul or Pope Clement considered to be Scripture. And since this is the 21st century, I can't for the life of me image why it matters.

Jesus Christ and Paul both quoted the Septuagint - it is quoted more often in the NT than the Masoretic OT. Does that qualify the Septuagint as Scripture ?

I get your point. Moses probably didn't think of Second Timothy as Scripture and probably would not have quoted from it. But what I don't understand is why does THAT reality mean that ergo it's not Scripture and thus isn't included when we speak of the rule of SCRIPTURE?

But that wasn't my point at all, nor can I determine such an egregious misreading of my post.

In the second letter to Timothy, Paul quotes only from the Septuagint.
Does that qualify the Septuagint as Scripture ?

Yes, I know your denomination thinks of Psalm 151 as Scripture. I know your denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture (and never has) and that this is a deep, grave concern to you. But while your denomination disagrees with ALL on what is and is not Scripture, that is a disagreement on the content of Scripture, not on the practice of embracing Scripture. When Moses used those Scriptures in 1400 BC normatively, he was practicing Sola Scriptura - even though his corpus of Scriptures was a lot smaller than yours. SAME practice, different canon. What in this so entirely confuses you, I just don't know.

But you don't even agree with the writers of the NT on what is Scripture; I do.

But here's what puzzled me. This is 2012. It's not 1400 BC. Sola Scriptura is the practice of using Scripture normatively as WE (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC) evaluate the disputed dogmas among US (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC). Why do you keep bringing up ancient history when none of us were even alive? Is your point whether Abraham used Sola Scripture? No one claimed that he did. Or is your point that Moses only used those two tablets ergo only that is Scripture? We're not Moses, this isn't 1400 BC. It's 2012.

So any Scripture written before 2012 is not Scripture ? Or Scripture written before our lifetime isn't valid ? I must misunderstand you; can you explain why Scripture, which is ancient, is not a valid topic of discussion re: Sola Scriptura ?

NOT "Weep, weep, why do none agree with my denomination on what is and is not Scripture!"

I'm sorry this discussion has so deeply upset you.

NOT "What was the most sound norma normans for Abraham to use in 1800 BC as he evaluated disputed dogmas in his day?"

Abraham spoke with God. What Scripture do you think he used ?

Which canon of DEUTERO books? The various OOC ones? The current EOC ones? The post Trent RCC ones?

Maybe you should read them !

Could you provide quotes in the NT from DEUTERO books where such is specifically referred to as "Scripture?"

I do assume you hold the Scripture you use to this standard, and excise from Scripture any Scripture that does not.

It's 2012.

Yes, and ...

Thank you!

You're quite welcome !

 

[Thekla]

Still no deutero quotes in the NT.

It's like the NT, for years many thought Clement of ROme's letter "scripture". We know better. Or John of Damascus lists a letter that no one regards as NT scripture. Folks have opinions, doesn't mean they're right.

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is quoted in the NT more than the Masoretic OT. Not all of the books of the Septuagint are quoted in the NT, and not all books in the Masoretic are quoted in the NT.

It seems to be the opinion of Sola Scriptura adherents here that they know better than Paul and the Evangelists.

 

[Standing Up]

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is quoted in the NT more than the Masoretic OT. Not all of the books of the Septuagint are quoted in the NT, and not all books in the Masoretic are quoted in the NT.

It seems to be the opinion of Sola Scriptura adherents here that they know better than Paul and the Evangelists.

Still no detero quotes in the NT.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It seems to be the opinion of Sola Scriptura adherents here that they know better than Paul and the Evangelists.

1. Tell us, with a verbatim quote please, exactly what books St.Paul regarded to be Scripture. Otherwise, your point seems..... missing.


2. This thread is not about your grave, personal disappointment that none agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture - and never has. You (and some others) keep bringing that up, trying to hijack this thread in hopes of getting some comfort on your disappointment, but this thread is not about your denomination having an agreement of none on that matter.


3. Sola Scriptura is our embrace of Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. It's not about what Abraham might have considered to be Scripture or what would be best for him to use as a rule for any disputed dogmas among various denominations in 1800 BC. It's not about what Moses may have considered to be Scripture or what rule he might best have used in the norming of disputed dogmas among denominations in his day. It's not even about what King Josiah may have regarded as Scripture or what rule he used or should have used. It's not about what St. Thomas regarded as Scripture (as if any knows). It's not about you seeking comfort in your disappointment that none agrees or has ever agreed with your singular, particular denomination on what is and is not Scripture. Sola Scriptura is our embrace of Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. I hope that helps.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Standing Up]

3. Sola Scriptura is our embrace of Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us..

Let's assume everyone here agrees on this. What's next? Shouldn't we know exactly what we've embraced? IOW, to LDS, their BoM is scripture. To RC/EO, 1 Macc is scripture. Now what?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

So what?


(As if it mattered - AT ALL) Is there even one example of some DEUTERO book being specifically quoted from and referenced specifically as "Scripture?"

It is referenced.

No.


NONE of the references in the list was an example of some DEUTERO books being specifically quoted from and referenced as Scripture. Not one.

Again, I DO appreciate your dismay over the reality that NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. But again, I honestly don't think it should cause you such great concern (I've read Psalm 151). But take your grave concern over this to a thread about that. Start a thread "Why Does None Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture" I will post in it, I promise. And perhaps give you some comfort on that point, you should not be so concerned. This thread is not about your concern over that.



It's not called "Sola LXX"
It's not called "Solum Novum Testimentum."
It's not called "The Rule of the Old Testament."
It's not called "The Rule of the Two Tablets of Moses."
It's called "The Rule of SCRIPTURE" (aka Sola SCRIPTURA)

How is that using Scripture as a norm, when you doubt the very writers who wrote it ?

1. If you insist that the various penmen of Scripture from Genesis - Revelation all embraced the same books of Scripture and they so stated, then quote them all on this point. Otherwise, your point is.... absent.


2. This thread is not about your denomination agreeing with none on what is and is not Scripture.

Frankly, I don't know how it's even possible to know what books Abraham or Moses of Josiah or Micah or John the Baptist or Jesus or Paul or Pope Clement considered to be Scripture. And since this is the 21st century, I can't for the life of me image why it matters.

.

Jesus Christ and Paul both quoted the Septuagint - it is quoted more often in the NT than the Masoretic OT.

Let's just pretend that's true. SO WHAT? It's not called "Sola Non Masoretic" it's Sola SCRIPTURA. If you want to add Psalm 151 to what you regard as Scripture - go ahead.


Quote Jesus where He quotes some DEUTERO book that the EOC alone regards as Scripture, and where He calls such "Scripture." Otherwise, you don't seem to have a point.... at all, and certainly not that has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread.

I get your point. Moses probably didn't think of Second Timothy as Scripture and probably would not have quoted from it. But what I don't understand is why does THAT reality mean that ergo it's not Scripture and thus isn't included when we speak of the rule of SCRIPTURE?

In the second letter to Timothy, Paul quotes only from the Septuagint.

Where does he mention the Septuagint? When does he quote from some DEUTERO book that the EOC alone embraces as Scripture - and Paul specifically calls it Scripture? If you don't have such a quote, I fail to see that you have a point. REMOTELY related to the issue of this thread.

If you want to discuss the reality that none agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that. This one is not about that.

Yes, I know your denomination thinks of Psalm 151 as Scripture. I know your denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture (and never has) and that this is a deep, grave concern to you. But while your denomination disagrees with ALL on what is and is not Scripture, that is a disagreement on the content of Scripture, not on the practice of embracing Scripture. When Moses used those Scriptures in 1400 BC normatively, he was practicing Sola Scriptura - even though his corpus of Scriptures was a lot smaller than yours. SAME practice, different canon. What in this so entirely confuses you, I just don't know.


But here's what puzzled me. This is 2012. It's not 1400 BC. Sola Scriptura is the practice of using Scripture normatively as WE (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC) evaluate the disputed dogmas among US (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC). Why do you keep bringing up ancient history when none of us were even alive? Is your point whether Abraham used Sola Scripture? No one claimed that he did. Or is your point that Moses only used those two tablets ergo only that is Scripture? We're not Moses, this isn't 1400 BC. It's 2012.

can you explain why Scripture, which is ancient, is not a valid topic of discussion re: Sola Scriptura ?

AS YOU KNOW, the PRACTICE of Sola Scriptura does not teach (practices don't EVER teach ANYTHING) what is and is not Scripture. You know that. We all know that. You persistently trying to hijack this thread to something you KNOW it isn't about is.... frustrating. We all realize that a couple of posters are really, deeply troubled by their denomination not agreeing with any on what is and is not Scripture. I UNDERSTAND. I really, honestly do. You wouldn't keep bringing that up if it wasn't deeply disturbing to you. I get it. I understand. But this isn't the thread for you to seek comfort or to try to argue that at least one other denomination should agree with yours on what is and is not Scripture.

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint.

Which canon of DEUTERO books?
The various OOC ones?
The current EOC ones?
The post Trent RCC ones?


Could you provide quotes in the NT from DEUTERO books where such is specifically referred to as "Scripture?"


.

Maybe you should read them

I've read every word of the unique post-Trent RCC set of DEUTERO books.

You didn't answer the question.

You have yet to show that any NT person quoted from ANY DEUTERO book and referenced such as Scripture. Or explained what it the world that has to do with this thread.






.

 

[Thekla]

.
No.


NONE of the references in the list was an example of some DEUTERO books being specifically quoted from and referenced as Scripture. Not one.

Nor are many of the Masoretic books - so, your point ?

1. If you insist that the various penmen of Scripture from Genesis - Revelation all embraced the same books of Scripture and they so stated, then quote them all on this point. Otherwise, your point is.... absent.

Is this a requirement of Sola Scriptura, or a personal opinion ?

2. This thread is not about your denomination agreeing with none on what is and is not Scripture.

Correct. And as noted, Sola Scriptura adherents do not agree with the authors of some of the Scriptures re: what comprises Scripture.

Which flies in the face of the claim of adhering to Scripture as a norm.

Let's just pretend that's true. SO WHAT? It's not called "Sola Non Masoretic" it's Sola SCRIPTURA. If you want to add Psalm 151 to what you regard as Scripture - go ahead.

Psalm 151 is not the only variation - I would think that having Scripture as a norm, you might be interested in which Scripture/s, and take an interest in the Scripture quoted most frequently in the NT (as there are numerous differences).

Quote Jesus where He quotes some DEUTERO book that the EOC alone regards as Scripture, and where He calls such "Scripture." Otherwise, you don't seem to have a point.... at all, and certainly not that has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread.

He quotes the Septuagint.
Is the Septuagint not Scripture; was He wrong on this ?

Where does he mention the Septuagint? When does he quote from some DEUTERO book that the EOC alone embraces as Scripture - and Paul specifically calls it Scripture? If you don't have such a quote, I fail to see that you have a point. REMOTELY related to the issue of this thread.

So when you use the OT, you only accept as Scripture those books quoted in the NT ?
Your OT must be much smaller than most.

If you want to discuss the reality that none agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that. This one is not about that.

We are discussing Sola Scriptura in this thread.
I am pointing out that at least some Sola Scriptura adherents do not embrace the Scripture used by the writers of the NT.
Why is that ?
I would think that norming from Scripture, you would respect Scripture above your own opinion of Scripture.

AS YOU KNOW, the PRACTICE of Sola Scriptura does not teach (practices don't EVER teach ANYTHING) what is and is not Scripture. You know that. We all know that. You persistently trying to hijack this thread to something you KNOW it isn't about is.... frustrating. We all realize that a couple of posters are really, deeply troubled by their denomination not agreeing with any on what is and is not Scripture. I UNDERSTAND. I really, honestly do. You wouldn't keep bringing that up if it wasn't deeply disturbing to you. I get it. I understand. But this isn't the thread for you to seek comfort or to try to argue that at least one other denomination should agree with yours on what is and is not Scripture.

Then how do you determine what Scripture to use ?
I would think if your praxis demands norming from Scripture, you might take an interest in what Scripture uses as Scripture.

I've read every word of the unique post-Trent RCC set of DEUTERO books.

You didn't answer the question.

You have yet to show that any NT person quoted from ANY DEUTERO book and referenced such as Scripture. Or explained what it the world that has to do with this thread.

So the Sola Scriptura adherents don't accept Joshua, Ruth, Lamentations and several other books as Scripture ?

That is really too bad ...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And as noted, Sola Scriptura adherents do not agree with the authors of some of the Scriptures re: what comprises Scripture.

1. Which practitioners?


2. What books did all the various penmen of Scripture, Genesis - Revelation, view as Scripture? And can you support that with quotes from them?


3. We all know that no denomination agrees with your on what is and is not Scripture, it stands alone. I take it this is the source of profound and deep sadness and concern for you - which I understand - it just has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to pursue that, start a thread, "Why Does None Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" I'll post in it. This thread isn't about that.

I would think you might be interested in which Scripture/s are quoted most frequently in the NT

.


Perhaps. Start a thread on that, it has NOTHING remotely to do with this thread.

What we'd discover is that there are NO examples of any DEUTERO books referenced in the NT as Scripture. Not that it matters.... at all... to this thread (or much otherwise).

He quotes the Septuagint. Is the Septuagint not Scripture

1. Jesus isn't us. 28 AD is not 2012 AD.

2. Did He quote from some DEUTERO book that the EOC uniquely calls Scripture - and did He call it "Scripture?" If not, your point seems.... pointless.

I would think that norming from Scripture, you would respect Scripture above your own opinion.

A valid theory, I think.

So the Sola Scriptura adherents don't accept Joshua, Ruth, Lamentations and several other books as Scripture ?

I think generally those books ARE regarded as Scripture. Which significant denominations among us in 2012 rejects those books as Scripture? If you can think of none, then I can't think of what your point might be.




Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (primarily the RCC and LDS) do NOT do so because they (along with the EOC and OOC) can't agree with any but itself on what is and is not Scripture. Nor because they have some alternative norma normans that is more inspired, more reliable, more inerrant, more objective, more knowable by all, more unalterable - a better norma normans. They do so because they reject accountability in the sole, singular, unique, exclusive, particular case of self alone - by any norma normans. It's not Scripture they question or disargee about or dismiss or reject. It's accountability they reject, in the singular case of self.






.

 

[Montalban]

Re post #839 Not everyone agrees with 66 books

For instance the book of Revelations place within the canon has not universal agreement

I also note the question I put was not addressed. Are these books 'by universal agreement' therefore an authority, or are they an authority which is why there is agreement?

 

[Montalban]

I looked through the list. There's not even one case.

You missed the bit with where the Hebrew prophecy is of 'maid'. When they translated this into Greek they chose 'virgin'.

 

[Montalban]

.

No.


NONE of the references in the list was an example of some DEUTERO books being specifically quoted from and referenced as Scripture. Not one.

You've still not stated why you follow SS

However in answer to this statement of yours;

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Scripture Catholic - SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

[Standing Up]

Re post #839 Not everyone agrees with 66 books

For instance the book of Revelations place within the canon has not universal agreement

I also note the question I put was not addressed. Are these books 'by universal agreement' therefore an authority, or are they an authority which is why there is agreement?

Which groups rejects Revelation nowadays?

Universal agreement? There isn't universal agreement. I'm just proposing the minimal agreement --- 66 books that we all agree upon.

 

[Standing Up]

.
Scripture Catholic - SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

None of those are quotes. Only references, like Paul referencing some poet.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

None of those are quotes. Only references, like Paul referencing some poet.

... and none of them to DEUTERO books.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

NONE of the references in the list was an example of some DEUTERO books being specifically quoted from and referenced as Scripture. Not one.


.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Scripture Catholic - SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Not a one - not a single one - is a quote. (the title of the link misstates reality)

Not a one - not a single one - is referenced to as Scripture.

... as if it mattered AT ALL to this thread.

If you want to weep about how NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture, take that to a thread about NONE agreeing with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. That's not the topic here.





.

 

[Montalban]

Not a one - not a single one - is a quote. (the title of the link misstates reality)

What of it? This is more spurrious reasoning based on selective use of evidence.

The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm

What matters is Jesus (through the Gospel writers) refers constantly to the collection that you reject, for some reason.

 

[Montalban]

Post #857 is still not an answer to my question

It misses the fact that even amongst books 'agreed' to there is disagreement.

For example we can say "We all agree to Psalms" but not all the Psalms are included in all bibles.

Psalm 151 for example is not in the Protestant bible

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What of it? This is more spurrious reasoning based on selective use of evidence.

Then [AS IF IT HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS THREAD] how do these various allusions indicate that all the penmen of Scripture regarded these books to be Scripture? If Jesus said "money" and Karl Marx said "money" in Das Kapital, does that prove that Jesus regarded Das Kapital to be Scripture? This is gotta be the silliest... well.

Look, we know that it concerns you gravely that none agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. HONESTLY, you've made that very, very, very clear. And you seem to have some overwhelming desire to hijack this thread to try to find some comfort in this reality. But this thread is not about that.

Esther, Judges, Joshua and, Ruth aren't quoted in the NT either.

I don't doubt that. I don't have a clue what that has to do with anything, but okay. Does your denomination reject them as Scripture? What percentage of denominations today reject them as Scripture? Never mine, it doesn't matter.

What matters is Jesus (through the Gospel writers) refers constantly to the collection that you reject, for some reason.

As if it mattered or had ANY relevance to this thread, Jesus NEVER once mentioned ANY DEUTERO book that we have any record of. As Scripture or as anything. As far as any can know, He never quoted from any, He never read from any, He never did anything with any of them. I agree with you, doesn't doesn't mean they weren't Scripture - it's just that your claim to Jesus on this is entirely BASELESS as well as entirely IRRELVANT. He didn't mention Second Timothy, either. But do the overwhelming majority of denominations today accept Ruth and 2 Timothy as Scripture? So, when we speak of Scripture, do the overwhelming majority of denominations (um, virtually 100%) include Ruth and 2 Timothy in that?


Look. We all know you have a grave, deep, troubling about how none agree with your denomination about what is and is not Scripture. Never have. It has an agreement of none on this. Okay. We all know that. It's NOT the huge issue you seem to feel so passionately that it is (I've read Psalm 151 - believe me, it's NOT that critical in the norming of any disputed dogmas among us today. You need not feel so depressed. But friend, take that to a thread about that. Make sense?

The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon

Okay. Not sure that matters, but okay.

It has already been documented that it does NOT quote from ANY DEUTERO book. Not any. Not one. Ever.

.

 

[Montalban]

Then [AS IF IT HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS THREAD] .

It has everything to do with this thread when people are saying that they follow scripture only

What is the scripture that they follow is important.

Why you do is still unknown to me.

As to the books I mentioned it simply undermines your objection

An OT book not quoted in the NT means NOTHING!

You keep stating 'rules' without reasons or for spurrious reasons. You adhere to sola scriptura as a rule - for an unknown reason. You reject certain books because they're not quoted in the NT, yet other OT books aren't either.

Furthermore re: our acceptance, see my re-edited post above regarding books that are 'accepted'

The example I give is but one example