missing books

[dosdog]

And I actually thought there may have been hope for you, but you seem blinded by your own mis-perceptions. You refuse to follow a conversation and stay on point, why? You refuse to refute something I posted and just started responding with dodges, why?

Over time, it must have become apparent that these men had been appointed by God to serve as a distinctive ministry. They are formally named as the Seven (Acts 21:8), even as the original apostles were called the Twelve. In short, the office of the Seven became as unique as that of the original apostles.

While not minimizing the importance of the apostles to the whole church, we may say, that in some way Stephen, Philip, and perhaps others of the appointed seven may well have been to the Hellenistic believers what the apostles were to the native-born Christians. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, “Acts,” page 335)

Verse 7
JERUSALEM CHURCH GROWS
Luke ends the account of the Seven with a summary statement of the progress of the gospel and church: “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7).

 

[dosdog]

Originally Posted by thecoach
Jesus and the apostles used the Greek Septuagint??? What proof do you have of this? Uneducated fishermen who spoke Aramaic, not even Hebrew, were fluent in Greek? Only non-Christian Jews (?) used the Hebrew OT? You need to provide MUCH proof of the allegations.

Prove they did not use the Septuagint
Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus.

Other New Testament writers also used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1.6 is a quotation from Psalm 97.7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the “graven images”, “idols” and “gods”. The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that “all the angels of God” worship Jesus.

apostlesbible.com/esvws.htm

Care to continue Coach?

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 -2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 -Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 -Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 -Tobit 4
John 10:22 -1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 -Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 -Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 -Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 -Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 -2 Maccabees 7

Matthew 6 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

Ecclesiasticus 7:14. Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good. 7:15. Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.

Matthew 23 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

2Esdr 1:30 I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.31 When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. 32 I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.

Luke 14 13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; 14 And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.

Tobias 4:7. Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee 8. According to thy ability be merciful.
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection.(Heb. 11:35). If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, during the Maccabean persecution

 

[thecoach]

Originally Posted by thecoach
Jesus and the apostles used the Greek Septuagint??? What proof do you have of this? Uneducated fishermen who spoke Aramaic, not even Hebrew, were fluent in Greek? Only non-Christian Jews (?) used the Hebrew OT? You need to provide MUCH proof of the allegations.

Prove they did not use the Septuagint
Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus.

Other New Testament writers also used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1.6 is a quotation from Psalm 97.7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the “graven images”, “idols” and “gods”. The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that “all the angels of God” worship Jesus.

apostlesbible.com/esvws.htm

Care to continue Coach?

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 -2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 -Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 -Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 -Tobit 4
John 10:22 -1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 -Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 -Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 -Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 -Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 -2 Maccabees 7

Matthew 6 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

Ecclesiasticus 7:14. Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good. 7:15. Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.

Matthew 23 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

2Esdr 1:30 I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.31 When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. 32 I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.

Luke 14 13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; 14 And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.

Tobias 4:7. Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee 8. According to thy ability be merciful.
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection.(Heb. 11:35). If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, during the Maccabean persecution

However, as pointd out by another here, the Hebrew Canon was decided at a later date after the time of Jesus, so does this mean it was still the Septuagint they were using and not Hebrew scriptures pre-canon? And I am the first to admmit when I am wrong, and upon a second reading there wer indeed connections I missed, and I apl;ogize for accusing you of being off point.

 

[dosdog]

However, as pointd out by another here, the Hebrew Canon was decided at a later date after the time of Jesus, so does this mean it was still the Septuagint they were using and not Hebrew scriptures pre-canon? And I am the first to admmit when I am wrong, and upon a second reading there wer indeed connections I missed, and I apl;ogize for accusing you of being off point.

Accepted

 

[thecoach]

Accepted

So as for my question…if the Hebrew canon came later, than is there a possibility that they were not using the Septuagint?

 

[dosdog]

So as for my question…if the Hebrew canon came later, than is there a possibility that they were not using the Septuagint?

Eventually, some Jews rejected the Septuagint in favor of another Greek translation before, ultimately, rejecting any Greek translation as authoratative. The Hebrew text of the Hebrew bible would not be fully stabilized until the work of a group of Jewish scribes, the Masoretes, in the early Middle Ages; this became known as the MasoreticText. In addition to finally fixing the text, they added the vowels, (Hebrew does not use seperate letters to indicate vowels), divisions, punctuations, and musical notations that govern the liturgical readings of the Torah."
Creating Judasim–History, Tradition, Practice -
by Michael L. Satlow - Satlow is an editor of Brown Judaic Studies and chair of the History and Literature of Rabbinic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature, and previously taught at Indiana University, the University of Virginia and the University of Cincinnati before arriving at Brown in 2002. During the 2006/7 academic year he will teach “Judaism,” “Early Jewish Prayer,” “The Beginning of Judaism,” and “The Jewish Lifecycle.”
amazon.com/Creating-Judai…6820215&sr=1-1

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.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

 

[thecoach]

Eventually, some Jews rejected the Septuagint in favor of another Greek translation before, ultimately, rejecting any Greek translation as authoratative. The Hebrew text of the Hebrew bible would not be fully stabilized until the work of a group of Jewish scribes, the Masoretes, in the early Middle Ages; this became known as the MasoreticText. In addition to finally fixing the text, they added the vowels, (Hebrew does not use seperate letters to indicate vowels), divisions, punctuations, and musical notations that govern the liturgical readings of the Torah."
Creating Judasim–History, Tradition, Practice -
by Michael L. Satlow - Satlow is an editor of Brown Judaic Studies and chair of the History and Literature of Rabbinic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature, and previously taught at Indiana University, the University of Virginia and the University of Cincinnati before arriving at Brown in 2002. During the 2006/7 academic year he will teach “Judaism,” “Early Jewish Prayer,” “The Beginning of Judaism,” and “The Jewish Lifecycle.”
amazon.com/Creating-Judai…6820215&sr=1-1

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.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Didnt it also exclude such books as Jubilees?

 

[dosdog]

Didnt it also exclude such books as Jubilees?

The Book of Jubilees, probably written in the 2nd century B.C.E., Jubilees as a platform for proposing a solar calendar of 364 days and 12 months; this would have been a radical departure from the Jewish Calendar, which is lunar-based.

sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/index.htm

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
I guess we would have to discuss that with them sometime. As for this discussion now, The Catholic Bible held the deutero’s for 1000 years, until the reformation. How do we know this? Because Martin Luther removed them.

Thank you. Praise the Holy Spirit.

Now let’s forget about all the arguing about the Hebrew canon and the Septuigent for a moment.

If one believes that the Holy Spirit Guided the compiling and canonization of the Bible, isn’t it logical to assume that He got it right in the first place?

Isn’t it logical to assume that since multiple Church Councils affirmed and re-affirmed the validity of these books in the Bible that this is the will of the Holy Spirit?

If one rejects this, and says the councils - The origional councils - Got it wrong, then how can one place ANY faith in ANY of the Books of the Bible?

Peace
James

 

[thecoach]

Thank you. Praise the Holy Spirit.

Now let’s forget about all the arguing about the Hebrew canon and the Septuigent for a moment.

If one believes that the Holy Spirit Guided the compiling and canonization of the Bible, isn’t it logical to assume that He got it right in the first place?

Isn’t it logical to assume that since multiple Church Councils affirmed and re-affirmed the validity of these books in the Bible that this is the will of the Holy Spirit?

If one rejects this, and says the councils - The origional councils - Got it wrong, then how can one place ANY faith in ANY of the Books of the Bible?

Peace
James

Another logical point.

 

[thecoach]

Here is something I came across this morning…

members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html

 

[JRKH]

Here is something I came across this morning…

members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html

An interesting article, but unconvincing I’m afraid. I say this mainly because of this staement.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever used these books, nor the disciples, nor that the Jewish leadership and congregation ever did. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that they didn’t. We see they quoted liberally from the very same Old Testament books which Protestants use today, and which the Jewish people utilize to this very day, and never once quote from the Apocrypha. Likewise, the New Testament writers quote from almost all of the Old Testament books, but do not ever quote from the Apocrypha.

He also states this:

The early Church also rejected them as being God inspired writings.

Yet I can show that Jesus, the NT writers and the Early Church were indeed familiar with and did use these books.

DeuteroCanonical References in the Bible and Early church

Even a quick glance at the above link will show that the authors premise is flawed at every point - Jesus, the NT authors, and the Early Church did in fact use the deuterocanonical books. The Early Church recognized this and so included them in the Bible at every council that dealt with the canon.

Since the author then builds his addtional points about the validity of the deutero’s based on this supposed, “lack of evidence” that they were used or referenced by Jesus or the early Church (clearly false) then the rest of his arguments fail.

I can only say that if they were good enough for our Lord, and good enough for the Spirit to include in the canon, then they should be good enough for us.

As a final point I will note that the author points out that Jesus and the NT writers did not quote from ALL of the OT writings. Should we also remove them since there is no evidence that Jesus ever held them as Scriptural? (just a little gibe there - not to be taken too seriously.)

Peace
James

 

[thecoach]

An interesting article, but unconvincing I’m afraid. I say this mainly because of this staement.

He also states this:

Yet I can show that Jesus, the NT writers and the Early Church were indeed familiar with and did use these books.

DeuteroCanonical References in the Bible and Early church

Even a quick glance at the above link will show that the authors premise is flawed at every point - Jesus, the NT authors, and the Early Church did in fact use the deuterocanonical books. The Early Church recognized this and so included them in the Bible at every council that dealt with the canon.

Since the author then builds his addtional points about the validity of the deutero’s based on this supposed, “lack of evidence” that they were used or referenced by Jesus or the early Church (clearly false) then the rest of his arguments fail.

I can only say that if they were good enough for our Lord, and good enough for the Spirit to include in the canon, then they should be good enough for us.

Peace
James

While I like the link, it seems to be a Catholic one and thus biased. Is there any third party neutral source you can provide as proof?

 

[dosdog]

While I like the link, it seems to be a Catholic one and thus biased. Is there any third party neutral source you can provide as proof?

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail.

Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and

no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

s8int.com/bibletimeline.html

 

[thecoach]

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail.

Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and

no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

s8int.com/bibletimeline.html

That is a good, non-biased source…well done.

 

[JRKH]

While I like the link, it seems to be a Catholic one and thus biased. Is there any third party neutral source you can provide as proof?

Afraid not - as far as links go I’d say that we will find few, if any, that are “unbiased”. After all the article you linked to certainly cannot be called unbiased based on his comment of "no evidence when there certainly is such evidence.

That is a problem with some of these discussions. We are either quoting from Catholic or Protestant sources for the most part and thus cannot completely eliminate the possible accusation of “bias”.

As to the validity of the link I posted, I can only say that the quotes can and must stand on their own. I’m sure you have a Bible, and I am sure that, if you don’t have the Deutero’s, you can probably access them online. So it is possible for you to do a little checking to see if the references given on the linked page holds up.

Peace
James

 

[dosdog]

Afraid not - as far as links go I’d say that we will find few, if any, that are “unbiased”. After all the article you linked to certainly cannot be called unbiased based on his comment of "no evidence when there certainly is such evidence.

That is a problem with some of these discussions. We are either quoting from Catholic or Protestant sources for the most part and thus cannot completely eliminate the possible accusation of “bias”.

As to the validity of the link I posted, I can only say that the quotes can and must stand on their own. I’m sure you have a Bible, and I am sure that, if you don’t have the Deutero’s, you can probably access them online. So it is possible for you to do a little checking to see if the references given on the linked page holds up.

Peace
James

What’s Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes

The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary

The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation
Search capabilities

latinvulgate.com/

 

[thecoach]

Afraid not - as far as links go I’d say that we will find few, if any, that are “unbiased”. After all the article you linked to certainly cannot be called unbiased based on his comment of "no evidence when there certainly is such evidence.

That is a problem with some of these discussions. We are either quoting from Catholic or Protestant sources for the most part and thus cannot completely eliminate the possible accusation of “bias”.

As to the validity of the link I posted, I can only say that the quotes can and must stand on their own. I’m sure you have a Bible, and I am sure that, if you don’t have the Deutero’s, you can probably access them online. So it is possible for you to do a little checking to see if the references given on the linked page holds up.

Peace
James

I must applaud how you go about discussion. You dont belittle or insult…you make it pleasurable whether we disagree or not. I do have the Deuteros, as I own a NAB and Dhouay-Rhiems translations

 

[JRKH]

I must applaud how you go about discussion. You dont belittle or insult…you make it pleasurable whether we disagree or not. I do have the Deuteros, as I own a NAB and Dhouay-Rhiems translations

I thank you for your kind words. I must give all credit the Holy Spirit though (and the backspace key) as I am a bit of a smart-alec in person.

I’m currently watching and/or participating in several threads along similar lines and am aquiring much good information on both sides of the argument of the primacy of Peter/Rome, the development of the Eastern vs Western Churches and the Roots of the Bible through the ECF’s and the councils.

I hope to use this information and the “sense” that I gather from the various sides to develop, what I hope will be, a logical and organic argument rather than a theological one for how and why the Church developed the way it did.

Just not sure the best way to present it to the board for discussion.

Peace
James

 

[Benadam]

Other than the doctrine of Purgatory can you tell me what is missing by not having these books?

I once came across a discussion between atheists and Protestant christians. The atheists challenged the Protestants to produce a scripture that proved man has free will. At the point I entered my protestant friends were about to concede that there was no explicite scripture proving free will. I found in Ecclesiasticus; God left man to his own counsel. Unfortunately in my zeal to rescue the situation I had forgotten that Ecclesiasticus was not included in the 66 books of the Protestant bible.