Please help

[VeronicasJude]

I have been beaten up for speaking word for word out of the Beginning Apologetics I. I was writing about the books that have been taken out of hte bible and then the next paragraph says.:

But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use- the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

Im sure you can imagine how this went over. Please help me. Im still learning a lot and Im not sure how to respond to “oh no, it was the other way around” Jews did not persecute Christians.

Please help

 

[kage_ar]

In Acts, beginning with Chapter 6 we have the account of the first Christian Martyr - Stephen. Stephen is put to death by stoning and the Scripture is clear about who is responsible for this death.

When we continue through Chapter 8 we read how Saul, a Jewish leader, was persecuting the early Church - Saul has a conversion experience on the road to Damascus and becomes Paul.

The book of Acts is early Christian Church history. That would be the place I would begin to explain the persecution of the early Church (and She was persecuted by more than the Jewish leaders…)

 

[dhgray]

VeronicasJude:

I have been beaten up for speaking word for word out of the Beginning Apologetics I. I was writing about the books that have been taken out of hte bible and then the next paragraph says.:

But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use- the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

Im sure you can imagine how this went over. Please help me. Im still learning a lot and Im not sure how to respond to “oh no, it was the other way around” Jews did not persecute Christians.

Please help

It sounds like an Evengelical’s argument, right? the correct answer would be:
The OT the non-Catholics use is missing books which are essential to the teaching of Christ. It was Martin Luther who removed the “unnecessary” text; but he said it was still sacred text and should be kept.

 

[estesbob]

VeronicasJude:

I have been beaten up for speaking word for word out of the Beginning Apologetics I. I was writing about the books that have been taken out of hte bible and then the next paragraph says.:

But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use- the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

Im sure you can imagine how this went over. Please help me. Im still learning a lot and Im not sure how to respond to “oh no, it was the other way around” Jews did not persecute Christians.

Please help

I beleive this refers to the so called “Jewish Canon” which exlcudes the sames books the Protestant OT does. It was intituted in around 1020 AD-some 600 years after the Catholic cannon was exstablished in Carthage?(398 I beleive). The question is why do the Protestant accept a OT cannon established by the Jews 1,000 years after Christ died?

If one follows the arguments generally used to eliinmate the books the protestants did you would have to likewise have to eliminate I beleive 9 more books from the Old Testanment and 7 from the new(Including 1Peter, 2Peter and Jude.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think a more clearer way of saying is, “Would you accept an Old Testament Canon from the same Jews, who at the time of their Canon decision, were persecuting the Christians”?

That was the reason Paul was heading to Damascus - as a Jew going to round up the Christians.

Notworthy

 

[estesbob]

dhgray:

It sounds like an Evengelical’s argument, right? the correct answer would be:
The OT the non-Catholics use is missing books which are essential to the teaching of Christ. It was Martin Luther who removed the “unnecessary” text; but he said it was still sacred text and should be kept.

Some of the books were omited purely for Theological reasons-for instance Macabees was pitched becuase of its allusins to praying to the dead and purgatory.

 

[Aaron_I]

estesbob:

I beleive this refers to the so called “Jewish Canon” which exlcudes the sames books the Protestant OT does. It was intituted in around 1020 AD-some 600 years after the Catholic cannon was exstablished in Carthage?(398 I beleive). The question is why do the Protestant accept a OT cannon established by the Jews 1,000 years after Christ died?

The Jews denied the inspiration of the deuterocanon in 90AD at the Council of Jamnia. It was in large part a response to the rise of Christianity, although there are some justifications given that have merit. Ultimately, we go with Christ’s Church on this one.

 

[estesbob]

Aaron I.:

The Jews denied the inspiration of the deuterocanon in 90AD at the Council of Jamnia. It was in large part a response to the rise of Christianity, although there are some justifications given that have merit. Ultimately, we go with Christ’s Church on this one.

You are indeed correct BUT I was only off a thousand years…