The 7 books

[Mannyfit75]

There’s that pesky term again…God uses men!

The Septuagint (LXX) was written by Jews. The present Jewish canon was written by those Jews who rejected our Saviour.

I know where you’re coming from. I myself spent most of my life as an evangelical Protestant going from church to church with my parents. Please, do the research yourself, and you’ll come to the same conclusion - the only un-inspired Scriptures are those formed by the Jews after Christ, and the one made by Martin Luther.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The Septuagint was written by Helenistic Jews, Greek Speaking Jews to be more accurate.

 

[Alexius]

The Septuagint was written by Helenistic Jews, Greek Speaking Jews to be more accurate.

I realize that, but there was no other Jewish canon at that time. Even after the Septuagint was written, the Jews debated the canon. Many did not find it necessary, as revelation from God was still being received…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Mannyfit75]

I realize that, but there was no other Jewish canon at that time. Even after the Septuagint was written, the Jews debated the canon. Many did not find it necessary, as revelation from God was still being received…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

There was no Jewish canon. That I agree. The Jews in the Council of Jamnia settle the matter in 90 A.D. but that council has no authority to Christians since Christians use those seven books, and like 2 Tim 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profiteable for teaching, reproof, for correction, and for training the righteous.”

As you can see I in the earlier posts, I quoted NT quotes that uses the 7 Books. Since these 7 Books were used by Christians from the 1st Century to the present (except for Protestants, who rejected them during the 1517 Protestant Reformation), these books were indeed inspired.

I find it odd that Protestants who consider these 7 Books as not inspired are at odds with 2 Tim 3:16 since clearly the Apostles and Jesus used them.

In way, the Protestants reject that part of Sola Scriptura… They remove the 7 books because these mainly they only want to use Hebrew written OT text rather than follow both the Greek and Hebrew OT, which were used by early Christians.

 

[Reformed1]

There was no Jewish canon. That I agree. The Jews in the Council of Jamnia settle the matter in 90 A.D. but that council has no authority to Christians since Christians use those seven books, and like 2 Tim 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profiteable for teaching, reproof, for correction, and for training the righteous.”

As you can see I in the earlier posts, I quoted NT quotes that uses the 7 Books. Since these 7 Books were used by Christians from the 1st Century to the present (except for Protestants, who rejected them during the 1517 Protestant Reformation), these books were indeed inspired.

I find it odd that Protestants who consider these 7 Books as not inspired are at odds with 2 Tim 3:16 since clearly the Apostles and Jesus used them.

In way, the Protestants reject that part of Sola Scriptura… They remove the 7 books because these mainly they only want to use Hebrew written OT text rather than follow both the Greek and Hebrew OT, which were used by early Christians.

Manny,

There are no scriptures where the books you call deutero’s are quoted. There may be some allusions to the deuteros but not one single quote, not a one.

The argument that the septuagint included the deuteros so the deuteros are inspired or canonical is without merit because if you want to include the deuteros based on their inclusion in the septuagint, you would have to include ALL the books in the septuagint, which you don’t.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

There are no scriptures where the books you call deutero’s are quoted. There may be some allusions to the deuteros but not one single quote, not a one.

The argument that the septuagint included the deuteros so the deuteros are inspired or canonical is without merit because if you want to include the deuteros based on their inclusion in the septuagint, you would have to include ALL the books in the septuagint, which you don’t.

They are not quoted directly say but they are mentioned. For example, Hanukkah is practiced amongst modern Jews of today.

The only reference to Hanukkah is in the Book of Maccabees.

Nearly 2,200 years ago, the Greek-Syrian ruler Antiochus IV tried to force Greek culture upon peoples in his territory. Jews in Judea—now Israel—were forbidden their most important religious practices as well as study of the Torah. Although vastly outnumbered, religious Jews in the region took up arms to protect their community and their religion. Led by Mattathias the Hasmonean, and later his son Judah the Maccabee, the rebel armies became known as the Maccabees.

After three years of fighting, in the year 3597, or about 165 B.C.E., the Maccabees victoriously reclaimed the temple on Jerusalem’s Mount Moriah. Next they prepared the temple for rededication—in Hebrew, Hanukkah means “dedication.” In the temple they found only enough purified oil to kindle the temple light for a single day. But miraculously, the light continued to burn for eight days.

Why do you think the Jews of today practice it? Most of these Jewish festival came out from an event in their history.

Compare Matt 24:15

“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place let the reader understand.”

1 Macc 1:54

Now the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erect a desolating sacrilege upon the alter of burnt offering.

Mark 4:5,16-17

"Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it had not much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.

Mark 4:16-17

And these in like a manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately received it with joy.

Sirach 40:15

The children of the ungodly will not put forth many branches, and they are unhealthy roots upon sheer rocks.

Notice the similiarity. Jesus had some knowledge of these books and surely have read them.

I can go on. These books like as Paul said, “All Scripture are profitable for teachings, reproof,” stated in 2 Tim 3:16

I can go on.

You can cite these verses if you like. I can go on if you wish to discuss the issue of the 7 Books of the OT.

 

[runandsew]

Manny,

There are no scriptures where the books you call deutero’s are quoted. There may be some allusions to the deuteros but not one single quote, not a one.

The argument that the septuagint included the deuteros so the deuteros are inspired or canonical is without merit because if you want to include the deuteros based on their inclusion in the septuagint, you would have to include ALL the books in the septuagint, which you don’t.

Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament either.
But around 300 of the 350 New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, that is why when you look up a quote from the New Testament, it is worded differently that the Hebrew Old Testament.

 

[Nan_S]

Manny,

There are no scriptures where the books you call deutero’s are quoted. There may be some allusions to the deuteros but not one single quote, not a one.

The argument that the septuagint included the deuteros so the deuteros are inspired or canonical is without merit because if you want to include the deuteros based on their inclusion in the septuagint, you would have to include ALL the books in the septuagint, which you don’t.

This is a curve-ball. The argument really is that all the records show the Early Christian Church accepted the deuteros. The codex of the Septuagint in Constantinople did have a couple of more books than the codex in Rome. That is absolutely not a reason to reject the Septuagint in its entirety.

The Jews who were re-building their religion after Jesus and after the loss of their temple were the ones who rejected the deuteros. They also rejected Jesus Christ. Whose judgment are you going to follow, the Early Christians, or the anti-Christians?

Nan

 

[Reformed1]

This is a curve-ball. The argument really is that all the records show the Early Christian Church accepted the deuteros. The codex of the Septuagint in Constantinople did have a couple of more books than the codex in Rome. That is absolutely not a reason to reject the Septuagint in its entirety.

The Jews who were re-building their religion after Jesus and after the loss of their temple were the ones who rejected the deuteros. They also rejected Jesus Christ. Whose judgment are you going to follow, the Early Christians, or the anti-Christians?

Nan

Nan,

Many of the ECF’s did not accept the deuteros, either in part or in whole.

I agree that the septuagint was used by Jesus and the apostles but that has no bearing on whether or not the deuteros were seen as being inspired or canonical nor is true that I or other protestants reject the septuagint based soley on the rejection of the deuteros.

 

[Reformed1]

Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament either.
But around 300 of the 350 New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, that is why when you look up a quote from the New Testament, it is worded differently that the Hebrew Old Testament.

Some of you guys believe that the NT quotes from the deuteros and that is not the case. That is why I posted what I did.

I realize that some books of the OT aren’t quoted either but that has nothing to do with my post or maybe more accurately, my post had nothing to do with that fact.

I never once implied or meant to imply that the reason I reject the deuteros is because of the fact that they are not quoted anywhere in the NT. I realize that would not be a good stand alone arugment.

 

[Reformed1]

They are not quoted directly say but they are mentioned. For example, Hanukkah is practiced amongst modern Jews of today.

The only reference to Hanukkah is in the Book of Maccabees.

Nearly 2,200 years ago, the Greek-Syrian ruler Antiochus IV tried to force Greek culture upon peoples in his territory. Jews in Judea—now Israel—were forbidden their most important religious practices as well as study of the Torah. Although vastly outnumbered, religious Jews in the region took up arms to protect their community and their religion. Led by Mattathias the Hasmonean, and later his son Judah the Maccabee, the rebel armies became known as the Maccabees.

After three years of fighting, in the year 3597, or about 165 B.C.E., the Maccabees victoriously reclaimed the temple on Jerusalem’s Mount Moriah. Next they prepared the temple for rededication—in Hebrew, Hanukkah means “dedication.” In the temple they found only enough purified oil to kindle the temple light for a single day. But miraculously, the light continued to burn for eight days.

Why do you think the Jews of today practice it? Most of these Jewish festival came out from an event in their history.

Compare Matt 24:15

“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place let the reader understand.”

1 Macc 1:54

Now the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erect a desolating sacrilege upon the alter of burnt offering.

Mark 4:5,16-17

"Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it had not much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.

Mark 4:16-17

And these in like a manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately received it with joy.

Sirach 40:15

The children of the ungodly will not put forth many branches, and they are unhealthy roots upon sheer rocks.

Notice the similiarity. Jesus had some knowledge of these books and surely have read them.

I can go on. These books like as Paul said, “All Scripture are profitable for teachings, reproof,” stated in 2 Tim 3:16

I can go on.

You can cite these verses if you like. I can go on if you wish to discuss the issue of the 7 Books of the OT.

I don’t think I disagree with anything you posted here but I don’t think you can argue the canonocity or inspiration of the deuteros based on allusions to them in the NT. Also, some of what is reported as allusions to the deuteros could reasonably be allusions to the OT books you and I agree are canonical.

I’ll try to post some comparisons later.

 

[VociMike]

They omit the entire NT

You mean they omit the very Paul whom “believers” cites as his authority for accepting the Jewish canon over the early Christian canon? That’s inconvenient.

 

[VociMike]

Paul said the “oracles of God” were committed unto them. It means our Old Testament is the same as their Jewish Bible.

So the Jews who used the Septaugint weren’t real Jews too? How do you decide which Jews had all of the oracles of God? Maybe the Jews who rejected the Messiah also rejected the books that pointed a little to strongly to the very Messiah they had rejected. But yeah, use the Jewish canon fixed 60 years after the death of Christ. That makes perfect sense to me.

You know, you can win your argument in a New York second if you just show any Church council that recognized the 66 “Protestant” books and did not recognize the Deuterocanonicals. Ready, set, go!

 

[runandsew]

Some of you guys believe that the NT quotes from the deuteros and that is not the case. That is why I posted what I did.

alone arugment.

We are not saying that the quotes came from those 7 books, we are saying that those quotes came from the greek version of the old testament in which these 7 books are included.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t think I disagree with anything you posted here but I don’t think you can argue the canonocity or inspiration of the deuteros based on allusions to them in the NT. Also, some of what is reported as allusions to the deuteros could reasonably be allusions to the OT books you and I agree are canonical.

I’ll try to post some comparisons later.

I do. The Apostles and Jesus used it. If you think about it, did the Christians had it wrong for the first 3 Centuries? There was no canon of Scripture prior to 382 A.D, which compelled a list of the OT which included the Septuagint.

These books were remove by Protestant Reformers in 1517 A.D because it did not support their doctrine and mainly because the Jews (who did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah) did not used them.

The Church settle the issue in the Council of Rome (382 A.D), Council of Hippo (392 AD), and Council of Carthage (396 AD).

I would take Paul’s word because he spoke Greek and have read the Septuagint. He even said in his letters to Timothy

2 Tim 3:16-17. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

All Scripture is referring to both the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint. According to Paul, these books are inspired.

Remember the Reformer remove the Septuagint from the Bible in 1517.

Before 1517, the Western Church was only Catholic Church. This dates back to the infancy of the Church.

If you claim these books are not inspired then you just contradicted Paul.

 

[Reformed1]

If you think about it, did the Christians had it wrong for the first 3 Centuries?

Which Christians? As you probably know, there were varying opinions on the canon…

There was no canon of Scripture prior to 382 A.D, which compelled a list of the OT which included the Septuagint…

Please provide us with a list of the books that the septuagint included. Fr. Mitch Pacwa even admits that the septuagint included extra books that you guys don’t deem either inspired or canonical. He did this during a debate with James White.

The Church settle the issue in the Council of Rome (382 A.D), Council of Hippo (392 AD), and Council of Carthage (396 AD).

No, the issue was not settled. You guys didn’t settle the issue for the RCC until Trent.

I would take Paul’s word because he spoke Greek and have read the Septuagint. He even said in his letters to Timothy

2 Tim 3:16-17. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

All Scripture is referring to both the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint. According to Paul, these books are inspired.

Remember the Reformer remove the Septuagint from the Bible in 1517.

First, there is no, absolutely no way you can logically argue that Paul had in mind the deuteros when he penned his epistle.

All scripture is referring to all scripture…thats it. Again, unless you want to accept the full index of books in the septuagint as canonical your argument is fallacious.

The reformers moved the books you guys call the deuteros. The deuterocanonical books are not the septuagint and the septuagint is not the deuterocanonical books. They are not one and the same thing.

 

[believers]

There’s that pesky term again…God uses men!

The Septuagint (LXX) was written by Jews. The present Jewish canon was written by those Jews who rejected our Saviour.

I know where you’re coming from. I myself spent most of my life as an evangelical Protestant going from church to church with my parents. Please, do the research yourself, and you’ll come to the same conclusion - the only un-inspired Scriptures are those formed by the Jews after Christ, and the one made by Martin Luther.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Yes, God uses men but the inspiration came from God.

 

[believers]

So the Jews who used the Septaugint weren’t real Jews too? How do you decide which Jews had all of the oracles of God? Maybe the Jews who rejected the Messiah also rejected the books that pointed a little to strongly to the very Messiah they had rejected. But yeah, use the Jewish canon fixed 60 years after the death of Christ. That makes perfect sense to me.

You know, you can win your argument in a New York second if you just show any Church council that recognized the 66 “Protestant” books and did not recognize the Deuterocanonicals. Ready, set, go!

You gave me too much time.

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’” (Luke 11:51).

 

[VociMike]

You gave me too much time.

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’” (Luke 11:51).

Oh please, can you possibly think this is an answer to my challenge? I said, and I repeat, show me any Church council which accepted the 66 “Protestant” books and rejected the Deuterocanoncals. If you can’t do that just say so - you won’t be the first to fail.

 

[believers]

Oh please, can you possibly think this is an answer to my challenge? I said, and I repeat, show me any Church council which accepted the 66 “Protestant” books and rejected the Deuterocanoncals. If you can’t do that just say so - you won’t be the first to fail.

The Word of God is the authority in all matters not your council.

You obviously do not believe Paul’s teaching. He said the Jews have the Oracles.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha.

The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it.

*“then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God,” (Rom. 3:1-2S. ). *

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.

“From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’” (Luke 11:51).

Jesus’ references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms

"Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled,” (Luke 24:44).

 

[VociMike]

The Word of God is the authority in all matters not your council.

As I expected, you cannot produce a single early Church council that recognizes the Protestant canon. You cannot produce a single bit of historical evidence that the early, “uncorrupted” Church ever recognized the Protestant canon.

You obviously do not believe Paul’s teaching.

That’s right, when in doubt tell the Catholic he doesn’t believe the Scriptures. That’s always a winning argument.

He said the Jews have the Oracles.

Was the Septaugint not written by Jews, for Jews? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a pagan endeavor.

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.

"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51).

Excuse me then while I tell the Protestant world to rip Malachi out of their bibles. I mean, this is too bizarre. You invalidate your own canon in trying to invalidate ours. Oh well, Malachi is such a little book…