Why not Apocraphy?

[repentant]

Nothing at all is wrong with the LXX. No Christian I know claims that there is (apart from the liberal theologians who would attack all Scriptures). The appocraphal books are not Scripture because they were never considered scripture. The Jews never considered them to be on the same level as the OT. They were not considered Scripture. They do not pass the test of Scripture. Even those who claim they should be a part of the canon, there is no unison of which ones are to be considered Scripture. The Romanists will tell you one thing, the EO another, the OO another. Who are we to believe?

And you think Jews should decide the Christian Canon?

Do you know the Septuagint was translated into the Greek in 300 BC from the Jewish Scripture? The Jews removed them, just like the Protestants did, after the fact. Not to mention the fact that they changed some wording so as to make Christ not look like the Messiah. Such as changing the word virgin, to maiden in Isaiahs prophecy. The NT says virgin, but the Hebrew OT says young maiden. Guess what the Septuagint says...VIRGIN...so should we let the Jews decide what is Scripture and what isn't?

 

[DarkLord]

Maybe the prots should follow the other decrees passed in the Council of Jamnia like the rejection of the NT and being circumsised etc etc

 

[BBAS 64]

Erm the Jews onli decided on their canon in the Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Thier decision are no longer binding to us after Christ founded his Church. ... Snip..

Good Day, DarkLord

Ummm...

You may what to yake some time like a couple of years to review the historical data.

Because you are flat out wrong

This will make it easier for you just take the word of your own denomination, cause that is what you are suppose too do, why do the work your self

To this end let's settle this once and for all;

THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION​

The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1. In Judaism

Do you have something they might of missed? It would be good of you to let them know.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BereanTodd]

And you think Jews should decide the Christian Canon?

When it comes to the OT yes. They wrote it, God passed it to us through them. Christianity is nothing more than fulfilled judaism, Romans 11 "we have been grafted onto" Israel. The split between church and Jew did not come until Christ. They have never considered the DC as Scriptural.

Do you know the Septuagint was translated into the Greek in 300 BC from the Jewish Scripture? The Jews removed them, just like the Protestants did, after the fact.

1. The LXX was not their Bible, it was a collection of yes, the Scriptures, and other writtings. They would read some of the DC's, even in their synagogues, but they have always considered there to be a difference between Scripture and the DC.

2. Not all of the DC was written in 300BC, Macabees for example came much latter during the Macabee period. So what is your argument for including them since you can't rely on the LXX?

Not to mention the fact that they changed some wording so as to make Christ not look like the Messiah. Such as changing the word virgin, to maiden in Isaiahs prophecy. The NT says virgin, but the Hebrew OT says young maiden. Guess what the Septuagint says...VIRGIN...so should we let the Jews decide what is Scripture and what isn't?

The Jews did not change their scripture at that point it has always been the word alma. By the way 'alma' does not merely mean "young woman", there is no good modern english translation for the word. If you want a proper english translation you would have to go back to Elizabethan English and the word "maiden". A "maiden" meant a young girl, but it also implied a moral character that would include virginity. You would not call someone who was not a virgin a "maiden". Alma is the same way in the Hebrew. It means young woman but it also implies a certain moral character which would include virginity.

However to imply that they changed it is ridiculous. They would have had no reason to change it before Christ came and Christians started pointing to the verse as meaning virgin, and we have copies of that text from two centuries before Christ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even back then the word was alma, "young woman".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Its called cross referencing. What he said was found in those books. Did u look at wad he said and the verses from the DC...are they similiar?

Then, my friend, it appears to me you mistated the situtation. Jesus did NOT "quote" from these books, so as to imply they are authoritative and/or normative. What you are now suggesting is that there mightr be some point of similiarity between something Jesus said and what is stated in some DC book. That's a completely, entirely different situation.


Such does not imply (even wildly, even remotely) that Jesus considered these books to be canonical or authoritive or God's Word. Any more than if I found two similar sentences in the Book of Mormon and the Bible that therefore we must conclude that the Book of Mormon is Canonical. I'm sure you could compare the NT to nearly all books and find sentences here and there with something "similar."


The simple fact is, Jesus NEVER quoted from any of these DC books. He did quote from the Holy Scriptures some 50 times, but never from any of these DC books.


Apples and oranges, my Catholic brother.




BTW, why DID the Catholic Church rip 4 books out of the Bible? If you accept these DC books, where is 3 and 4 Maccadees, Esdras and the 151th Psalm????? I'm sure the Orthodox Church, from which the RCC separated in 1054, wants to know (and I'm curious).



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[BereanTodd]

Such does not imply (even wildly, even remotely) that Jesus considered these books to be canonical or authoritive or God's Word. Any more than if I found two similar sentences in the Book of Mormon and the Bible that therefore we must conclude that the Book of Mormon is Canonical. I'm sure you could compare the NT to nearly all books and find sentences here and there with something "similar."


The simple fact is, Jesus NEVER quoted from any of these DC books. He did quote from the Holy Scriptures some 50 times, but never from any of these DC books.






.

Moreover, by his logic, we need to add some Greek poets into the canon of Scripture, because Paul quoted them in the book of Acts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Moreover, by his logic, we need to add some Greek poets into the canon of Scripture, because Paul quoted them in the book of Acts.

Good point.
Thank you!

 

[BigNorsk]

St Augustine was for the CC OT canon...why dont u follow the other jewish teachings then.....

Sure I follow other Jewish teachings, my God is one. How about yours?

Anyway, if someone would like to read a rather good discussion of the Jewish canon I would reference the Jewish Encyclopedia article on canon. It's quite informative.

Marv

 

[BigNorsk]

And you think Jews should decide the Christian Canon?

Do you know the Septuagint was translated into the Greek in 300 BC from the Jewish Scripture? The Jews removed them, just like the Protestants did, after the fact. Not to mention the fact that they changed some wording so as to make Christ not look like the Messiah. Such as changing the word virgin, to maiden in Isaiahs prophecy. The NT says virgin, but the Hebrew OT says young maiden. Guess what the Septuagint says...VIRGIN...so should we let the Jews decide what is Scripture and what isn't?

It would be difficult to remove what wasn't there. Clearly the original Septuagint did not contain all the Apochryphal books, I don't know anyone who dates them all early enough to be before the Septuagint translation was done. The questions become when were they added, under whose authority, should that authority be accepted and so on. The Septuagint is surrounded by myth be careful what you accept as fact.

Marv

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Erm the Jews onli decided on their canon in the Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Thier decision are no longer binding to us after Christ founded his Church.

Its ludicrous to even mention the Council of Jamnia...in the first place it is only a hypothetical occurrance, and IF it did occur, it WASN'T a Christian Council...its decision would NEVER have been binding on Christians. These were the "Fathers of the Talmud", if you will.

Why not bring in the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon?

 

[christianmomof3]

In...
Matthew 4:4, He referred to Deuteronomy 8:3 (Deuteronomy is not deuterocannonical or apocraphyl, it is part of the Torah and Old Testament as are many of the books you list as being referred to, referenced or quoted.I will just leave those out of your list since they do not relate to this post.)
Matthew 6:10, He referenced 1Maccabees 3:60 (1 Maccabees ch. 3 only has 59 verses - not 60)
Matthew 6:13, He referenced Sirach 33:1
Sirach 33:1 No evil can harm the man who fears the LORD; through trials, again and again he is safe.
MT 6:13 And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil `one.' I am not sure how this is a reference to the verse in Sirach.
Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31, He referenced Tobit 4:16

Tobit 4:16 "Give to the hungry some of your bread, and to the naked some of your clothing. Whatever you have left over, give away as alms; and do not begrudge the alms you give.
MT 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.
LK 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Matthew 11:25, He quoted Tobit 7:18
(Tobit ch 7 has only 17 verses - not 18)I am using the New American Bible - a Catholic Bible to find these verses. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/#1maccabees
Matthew 12:42, He quoted the Book of Wisdom itself
Matthew 13:43, He quoted Wisdom 3:7
7 3 In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble; MT 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear.well, both verses have the word shine in them. Does that make it a quote?

If Christ quoted DC...it should be good enough for me.

Some of these that you say are "quoted" may have one or two of the same words in them, but often are not even speaking of the same thing and are certainly not quotes. Many of the verses listed do not exist and many have nothing to do with each other at all.
It would be good if you check your references.
I went partway through this list and this is what I found so far. Perhaps you could list all of these verses and show how they relate to one another.

 

[Zeena]

Yes, please do!

 

[TheGMan]

Some of these that you say are "quoted" may have one or two of the same words in them, but often are not even speaking of the same thing and are certainly not quotes. Many of the verses listed do not exist and many have nothing to do with each other at all.

Moreover, the writers of the New Testament are usually pretty clear to state when they are quoting the Old Testament. Paul for instance uses kathos gegraptai ("as it is written") to indicate a citation from Scripture. Almost all such quotation are from the Rabbinic Old Testament. The exception is in Epistle of Jude but the only catholic tradition that recognises the Book of Enoch as Scripture is the Ethiopian church.

 

[christianmomof3]

Here are some other links that I found about the deuterocannonical books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/apoc.html#top
http://www.americanbible.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6151&news_iv_ctrl=1302
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm
and I found a 1 Macc ch 3 v. 60 in that version
60 Nevertheless, as the will of God is in heaven, so let him do.
MT 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
those two are similar.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of these that you say are "quoted" may have one or two of the same words in them, but often are not even speaking of the same thing and are certainly not quotes. Many of the verses listed do not exist and many have nothing to do with each other at all.
It would be good if you check your references.
I went partway through this list and this is what I found so far. Perhaps you could list all of these verses and show how they relate to one another.

And show that Jesus is QUOTING from them; that He indicates that it is Holy Scripture He is QUOTING.



.

 

[Zeena]

Please..

 

[repentant]

When it comes to the OT yes. They wrote it, God passed it to us through them. Christianity is nothing more than fulfilled judaism, Romans 11 "we have been grafted onto" Israel. The split between church and Jew did not come until Christ. They have never considered the DC as Scriptural.



1. The LXX was not their Bible, it was a collection of yes, the Scriptures, and other writtings. They would read some of the DC's, even in their synagogues, but they have always considered there to be a difference between Scripture and the DC.

2. Not all of the DC was written in 300BC, Macabees for example came much latter during the Macabee period. So what is your argument for including them since you can't rely on the LXX?



The Jews did not change their scripture at that point it has always been the word alma. By the way 'alma' does not merely mean "young woman", there is no good modern english translation for the word. If you want a proper english translation you would have to go back to Elizabethan English and the word "maiden". A "maiden" meant a young girl, but it also implied a moral character that would include virginity. You would not call someone who was not a virgin a "maiden". Alma is the same way in the Hebrew. It means young woman but it also implies a certain moral character which would include virginity.

However to imply that they changed it is ridiculous. They would have had no reason to change it before Christ came and Christians started pointing to the verse as meaning virgin, and we have copies of that text from two centuries before Christ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even back then the word was alma, "young woman".

Um no we shouldn't. Christ and His Apostles quoted the Septuagint, this is what we should use.

And yes they changed it. You are right, they would have no reason to change it prior to Christ. And yes Christians would point to it for it's use of virgin. This is why I said that they changed it to make Christ not look like the Messiah. Why would they do it before? It would have to be after..

And even if you are correct, that it always was "alma", then why does the NT use virgin? Therefore my point still stands because they NT writer's used the Septuagint version over the Hebrew.

 

[BereanTodd]

Um no we shouldn't. Christ and His Apostles quoted the Septuagint, this is what we should use.

The LXX did not include Macabees, so why does the Romanists bible?? You can't do that based on the LXX. Again, the Jews gave us the OT. We are merely completed Jews. They have never placed the DC on the same level as Scripture. Even if you claim based on the LXX that they did (though you would be wrong there), that still does not include Macabees and other books in your RCC canon today.

And yes they changed it.

Show proof.

You are right, they would have no reason to change it prior to Christ. And yes Christians would point to it for it's use of virgin. This is why I said that they changed it to make Christ not look like the Messiah. Why would they do it before? It would have to be after..

I don't think that you get my point. We have copies of that passage from 200 years before Christ. And 200 years before Christ the word was "young woman" (alma). You are saying that they changed it later on. My point is that you are proven wrong, because the word was allready 'young woman' (alma) 200 years before Christ. In other words you are wrong. Plain and simple.

And even if you are correct, that it always was "alma", then why does the NT use virgin? Therefore my point still stands because they NT writer's used the Septuagint version over the Hebrew.

No, again the Hebrew implies virginity. Did you read a thing that I stated? The Hebrew language even in "alma" implies virginity. That is why the Jewish writters of the LXX used the Greek word for virgin.

But again. The Jews have never ... ever ... considered the DC Scriptural. THey wrote it. They gave us the OT. Yes we should consider that in our determination of what constitutes Scripture. Jesus even implied that the OT scriptures did not include the DC.

 

[repentant]

The LXX did not include Macabees, so why does the Romanists bible?? You can't do that based on the LXX. Again, the Jews gave us the OT. We are merely completed Jews. They have never placed the DC on the same level as Scripture. Even if you claim based on the LXX that they did (though you would be wrong there), that still does not include Macabees and other books in your RCC canon today.



Show proof.



I don't think that you get my point. We have copies of that passage from 200 years before Christ. And 200 years before Christ the word was "young woman" (alma). You are saying that they changed it later on. My point is that you are proven wrong, because the word was allready 'young woman' (alma) 200 years before Christ. In other words you are wrong. Plain and simple.



No, again the Hebrew implies virginity. Did you read a thing that I stated? The Hebrew language even in "alma" implies virginity. That is why the Jewish writters of the LXX used the Greek word for virgin.

But again. The Jews have never ... ever ... considered the DC Scriptural. THey wrote it. They gave us the OT. Yes we should consider that in our determination of what constitutes Scripture. Jesus even implied that the OT scriptures did not include the DC.

So now you say it's ok to imply something in Scripture?

But a question...when the Gospel writers were writing the Gospels, why did the use virgin, and not the hebrew word "alma"? There is a Greek word for maiden, why not use this word? Why use..parthene?

And where does Jesus impy that the OT Scriptures did not include the DC?

 

[Oblio]

The Jews have never ... ever ... considered the DC Scriptural.

That would explain why they translated it so the Diaspora had Scripture to read.

Or are you speaking of the Jews that deny Jesus is the Christ ?

Yes we should consider that in our determination of what constitutes Scripture.

Right, we should listen to those who deny God and persecute His Church as to what is his word.