The 7 books

[Mannyfit75]

I asked believers to show me the errors because I know that he cannot. There is no evidence to show any errors in the Septuagint or the Deuterocanonicals.

There isn’t. I look it up myself and I could not find one. When I did look I only found LXX quoted more often in the NT than the Hebrew Text.

Take a look at this.

geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

 

[Traditional_Ang]

That’s not proof at all. That’s just man made observations and statistics. I’ll say again, to add the Apocrypha is to contradict the Word of God. If you guys want to add it to your doctrine then that’s your choice. I’ll believe Jesus and stick with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

Believers:

TANACH - Torah (Instruction), Nevi’im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings - NOT “Psalms”). If you would accept just the “Psalms” instead of the “Writings”, you would be berefit of most of the OT you claim to accept.

What you can’t seem to see is that the books the Jews had originally decided belonged in the TANACH included the books the early Church read and used for, “…teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16b-17 NIV

Let me repeat that for clarity - The books that we have allowed for the sake of charity to be identified as “Deuterocanon”, and that were included as “Apocrypha” in almost all Prostestant Bibles, were originally in the TANACH or the Jewish Bible. Most of the books were included as part of the writings. While things such as the Prayer of the 3 Young Men were included in the Prophets.

Many of books and sections were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, and not in Greek. What’s happened is that most of the sections in the original languages have been lost. Because of the Council of Jamnia, Jewish Scribes stopped copying them.

It’s not the Catholics and Orthodox who are ACCEPTING books because of their doctrines. It’s the Protestants who have REJECTED these books and accepted the Canon of Scrpipture adopted by people who CURSED JESUS and Christians who have done so because of their doctrines.

I would still like to know why you’ve insisted that the Canon of the Jewish Council of Jamnia is the correct one when…
The Council of Jamnia was in 90 A.D. and was convened almost 60 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus and 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem,
The Council of Jamnia specifically wrote and required 4 “Curses” of guests and new members of Synagogues; 2 of Jesus of Nazareth, 1 relating to the claim that he was risen from the dead and 1 about against his followers (“Nazarenes”), and
The Books of the Alexandrian Canon (including the 7 books in question) were used for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” by the Sub-Apostolic and Early Church Fathers, if not the Apostles themselves.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[stargazer257]

I have always felt comfortable with how James Akin puts it:

“a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ”

It seems to be binding to some, but not the followers of Christ in the early church.

 

[lak611]

I have always felt comfortable with how James Akin puts it: It seems to be binding to some, but not the followers of Christ in the early church.

That is true. If we had to follow all of the Jewish teachings, we would be following the dietary laws in Leviticus too. We don’t see too many Christians who feel a need to do that.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Brothers and Sisters:

The reason I’ve continued here can be summarized in the following:

“Let me tell you why you are here. You’re here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You’ve lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.” Matt. 5:13 The Message

I live in an area where I could say the churches have had little effect. We recently had an election to decide whether to require that girls under the age of 18 should be required to notify their parents (judicial override was provided if one of the parents could be shown to be abusive) before having an Abortion.

The present state of the law is that a girl’s school is required to take her to have an abortion and lie to her parents about her whereabouts if they ask. That’s the decision from the CA Atty General and State Suprteme Court.

The Proposition on the ballot in 2006 designed to change this LOST and badly. The coordinated leadership from the churches which just might have given it a chance was conspicuous by its abscence.

I’ve often seen churches occupying storefronts, many claiming to be “God’s representatives on earth”, and many within a matter of a few blocks of several other similar storefronts and a couple of other regular church buildings, most of which never talk to, pray for or meet with each other.

And, I have to wonder how much of this conversation is along those lines… Believers has repeatedly said the Catholic Church is “Your Church” to many of the Catholics. I guess the Catholics should be grateful, because the last one who claimed ownership of the Church was Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 16:18, Acts 9:4-5).

America has slaughtered over 47 million babies through various types of Abortions. I wonder what would happen if all of those storefronts and other Churches, instead of having debates such as this, would unite to undertake a Spiritual War against Abortion and the other Abominations that are eating away at the fiber of our country like a bunch of termites.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[runandsew]

I’ll say again, to add the Apocrypha is to contradict the Word of God. If you guys want to add it to your doctrine then that’s your choice. I’ll believe Jesus and stick with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

I am not sure if you have already explained why God would have allowed the writers of the New Testament to quote from the Septuagint on the vast majority of the old testament quotes if it wasn’t inspired, and why we are on it, why did Jude quote from the book of enoch, even Catholics don’t believe that book is inspired?

Not everything in the bible points to Christ, what Jesus was doing was pointing to those passages that did point to him.

 

[RNRobert]

I am not sure if you have already explained why God would have allowed the writers of the New Testament to quote from the Septuagint on the vast majority of the old testament quotes if it wasn’t inspired, and why we are on it, why did Jude quote from the book of enoch, even Catholics don’t believe that book is inspired?

He also quoted from the Assumption of Moses (where the archangel Michael is arguing with the Devil), which is not scripture either.

 

[joshua_b]

Just a general observation here…

it is only the Protestants who have a problem with the Septuagint and argue vigorously that it has no place in the history of Salvation. The argument that the Jews “rejected” these books is shallow and historically inaccurate on all fronts, but they still cling to it tightly.

The reason I say that is because, while “yes” there was a segment of Jews who rejected these books during one point in history, it in no way negates the historical fact that these books were accepted prior to that, among some Jews are STILL accepted, and almost ALL Jewish rabbis and scholars today acknowledge the historical signifigance and place of these books.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
If the Jews rejected the deuters, why then don’t our seperated brethern become jewish? after all the Jews did not accept the gospels either, I think exclusion of the septuagint defies all logic, other then it fits protestant theology.

Have a nice day!!
Peace
OneNow1

 

[VociMike]

Hi,
If the Jews rejected the deuters, why then don’t our seperated brethern become jewish? after all the Jews did not accept the gospels either, I think exclusion of the septuagint defies all logic, other then it fits protestant theology.

A similar oddity can be seen in the fact that the same people who accept the judgement of the early Church regarding the books of the New Testament (however they think that judgement was arrived at), reject the judgement of that very same early Church regarding the books of the Old Testament, in favor of the judgement of those Jews who refused to accept Christ! How nonsensical is that?!

To repeat my challenge once again, I invite believers to produce any authoritative listing of the canon of scripture from the early Church, which includes the 66 “Protestant” books but excludes the deuterocanonicals. That should be so easy, if the truth is on his side.

 

[believers]

Where are these errors? Do you have evidence to prove the errors?

The errors exist but you’ll have to do the research on your own. I’ll defend the Word of God. The Apocrypha is not the Word of God so I’ll leave that alone. You can easily find the errors yourself on Google. Many resources on that are available if you want.

 

[believers]

A similar oddity can be seen in the fact that the same people who accept the judgement of the early Church regarding the books of the New Testament (however they think that judgement was arrived at), reject the judgement of that very same early Church regarding the books of the Old Testament, in favor of the judgement of those Jews who refused to accept Christ! How nonsensical is that?!

To repeat my challenge once again, I invite believers to produce any authoritative listing of the canon of scripture from the early Church, which includes the 66 “Protestant” books but excludes the deuterocanonicals. That should be so easy, if the truth is on his side.

We are Jewish by the circumcision of our hearts.

Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

 

[believers]

Just a general observation here…

it is only the Protestants who have a problem with the Septuagint and argue vigorously that it has no place in the history of Salvation. The argument that the Jews “rejected” these books is shallow and historically inaccurate on all fronts, but they still cling to it tightly.

The reason I say that is because, while “yes” there was a segment of Jews who rejected these books during one point in history, it in no way negates the historical fact that these books were accepted prior to that, among some Jews are STILL accepted, and almost ALL Jewish rabbis and scholars today acknowledge the historical signifigance and place of these books.

And like all other Catholics before you… you have no scriptural evidence to show for.

 

[believers]

I am not sure if you have already explained why God would have allowed the writers of the New Testament to quote from the Septuagint on the vast majority of the old testament quotes if it wasn’t inspired, and why we are on it, why did Jude quote from the book of enoch, even Catholics don’t believe that book is inspired?

Not everything in the bible points to Christ, what Jesus was doing was pointing to those passages that did point to him.

Correction, the ENTIRE Word of God points to Christ. Where did you even get the idea that it doesn’t? Oh wait… the Apocrypha.

 

[believers]

Believers:

TANACH - Torah (Instruction), Nevi’im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings - NOT “Psalms”). If you would accept just the “Psalms” instead of the “Writings”, you would be berefit of most of the OT you claim to accept.

What you can’t seem to see is that the books the Jews had originally decided belonged in the TANACH included the books the early Church read and used for, “…teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16b-17 NIV

Let me repeat that for clarity - The books that we have allowed for the sake of charity to be identified as “Deuterocanon”, and that were included as “Apocrypha” in almost all Prostestant Bibles, were originally in the TANACH or the Jewish Bible. Most of the books were included as part of the writings. While things such as the Prayer of the 3 Young Men were included in the Prophets.

Many of books and sections were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, and not in Greek. What’s happened is that most of the sections in the original languages have been lost. Because of the Council of Jamnia, Jewish Scribes stopped copying them.

It’s not the Catholics and Orthodox who are ACCEPTING books because of their doctrines. It’s the Protestants who have REJECTED these books and accepted the Canon of Scrpipture adopted by people who CURSED JESUS and Christians who have done so because of their doctrines.

I would still like to know why you’ve insisted that the Canon of the Jewish Council of Jamnia is the correct one when…
The Council of Jamnia was in 90 A.D. and was convened almost 60 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus and 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem,
The Council of Jamnia specifically wrote and required 4 “Curses” of guests and new members of Synagogues; 2 of Jesus of Nazareth, 1 relating to the claim that he was risen from the dead and 1 about against his followers (“Nazarenes”), and
The Books of the Alexandrian Canon (including the 7 books in question) were used for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” by the Sub-Apostolic and Early Church Fathers, if not the Apostles themselves.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

If you’re truly a Christian, you’ll believe Jesus when He said “Psalms” and NOT writings.

Jesus called it the Psalms. If you have a problem with that then you’ll have to take it up with Him.

Once again, absolutely no scriptural proof. Just another of man’s observations and statistics.

 

[believers]

A similar oddity can be seen in the fact that the same people who accept the judgement of the early Church regarding the books of the New Testament (however they think that judgement was arrived at), reject the judgement of that very same early Church regarding the books of the Old Testament, in favor of the judgement of those Jews who refused to accept Christ! How nonsensical is that?!

To repeat my challenge once again, I invite believers to produce any authoritative listing of the canon of scripture from the early Church, which includes the 66 “Protestant” books but excludes the deuterocanonicals. That should be so easy, if the truth is on his side.

No, the burden of proof is on you to disprove what Jesus said regarding the Laws, Prophets, and Psalms.

Jesus is the authority in case you’ve forgotten.

 

[VociMike]

No, the burden of proof is on you to disprove what Jesus said regarding the Laws, Prophets, and Psalms.

Jesus is the authority in case you’ve forgotten.

Only by your own sense of infallibility do those words require the rejection of the Deuterocanonicals. But, and here’s the rub, your interpretation of those words to require this could be wrong!

The situation is clear. If you could show any early Church canon which matched the Protestant canon you would. You haven’t, because you can’t. You cannot produce a single shred of evidence that those closest to the apostles accepted your canon. So I guess the Church has had a false canon from the very beginning, according to your theory.

 

[believers]

Only by your own sense of infallibility do those words require the rejection of the Deuterocanonicals. But, and here’s the rub, your interpretation of those words to require this could be wrong!

The situation is clear. If you could show any early Church canon which matched the Protestant canon you would. You haven’t, because you can’t. You cannot produce a single shred of evidence that those closest to the apostles accepted your canon. So I guess the Church has had a false canon from the very beginning, according to your theory.

I highly recommended that you listen to Jesus. He set the canon. I don’t need someone else to tell me what to believe when Jesus already said it.

 

[believers]

Apparently you guys need a refresher as to why the Word of God trumps your religion.

Hbr 4:12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

 

[VociMike]

I highly recommended that you listen to Jesus. He set the canon. I don’t need someone else to tell me what to believe when Jesus already said it.

You are not Jesus’ oracle. If you had evidence that the earliest Christians accepted your canon, you would provide it. Your silence on this matter speaks louder than any words.

Anyway, I’m done with this line of discussion. The facts are clear. The earliest Christians accepted the Catholic canon, not the Protestant canon. This is indisputable. The case is truly closed on the matter. All you are left with is the charge that the earliest Christians got the canon wrong.