The Lord's Prayer - Does it have Jewish Roots and parallels that our Lord used? How should I understand this?

[FishyPete]

Remember to go beyond the apparent exegesis, even if these are offered by “authorities:”
ie: non-Catholics offer that the Bible, the Hebrew text, is the correct version of Sacred Scripture… these appeal to the authority of the Jews who REJECT Christ as the Messiah and Great King; while, simultaneously, ignoring that there is evidence that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the Sacred Writings, which contains those seven books which are (mostly) rejected by non-Catholic Christians as part of the Sacred Scripture.

Maran atha!

Angel
Angel

A, I see you mean the deuterocanon (ie. “second canon”) is a set of seven books — Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics

I answered my own question by using google.

 

[TimothyH]

And wasn’t Jesus sent to reclaim the Jews, bring them back to the truth that is G-d, but they rejected Him??? That’s the reason He quoted the OT all the time, so they would know He wasn’t speaking a foreign language… but they couldn’t see… so as the OT says, salvation was offered to the gentiles, all nations. Yay, for the rest of us!
Lord, every nation on earth will adore YOU!!!

It’s funny because Paul is often called the Apostle to the Gentiles and even calls himself that, but in every single place he visited he went to the Jews first. Only when the Jews rejected him did he go to the Gentiles.

-Tim-

 

[Brian_Crane]

I was just troubled that some modern Jewish folks are seeming to imply on some websites that our Lord copied or plagerized.

But that’s what Jews will do, and I would imagine its always been that way (not just a modern phenomenon.) And I don’t mean that to be flippant at all. Likewise Muslims will imply certain things and Protestants will imply certain things, and atheists will imply things about everything. That’s just the way it is. In a macro sense, sure, that’s troubling, because they don’t have the fullness of truth, but I think it’s better for your personal peace of mind to to understand that when you go to a non-Catholic website, you might see something disagreeable. Just my $.02.

 

[Brian_Crane]

What are the seven books you are talking about? And why do non-Catholic Christians reject them?

I would imagine there are dozens (maybe more) of threads on this topic on this very forum. It would probably be worth a look.

The short answer is that not all non-Catholic Christians reject them. Most Protestants do though, and that is because of their tradition. The books were accepted as canonical throughout virtually all of Christendom until Martin Luther removed them in the early 16th century. They remained in even most Protestant bibles for another few hundred years, but they eventually came to be excluded altogether. Again, much much more could be said and unpacked, but that’s a very brief summary.

 

[jcrichton]

A, I see you mean the deuterocanon (ie. “second canon”) is a set of seven books — Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics

I answered my own question by using google.

Hi, FishyPete!

…yeah, these 7 books (and the extra text in Danial and Esther) is in contention in the mind of most non-Catholic Christians… they cite the fact that at the beginning of the era (compilation of the Bible) some Bishops (and others) did not find them to be inspired by God–this of course is a question of personal opinion (as much as Jesus traveling to the Orient (East) and not actually being crucified, etc.).

As an example of opinion: Pope John Paul II stated something to the fact “…it is as it was…” in reference to the Passion of the Christ. Was he there when the original event took place? No. But he offered an educated opinion (based on what is revealed in Scripture, and perhaps what he learned about the practice of Roman crucifixion). His opinion is not dogma nor an official Teaching of the Church so if we were to find an authentic extra Biblical source that describes Christ’s Crucifixion, it could very well be that it fully supports the Pope’s opinion or that it varies in some level or another…

The actual problem would be if his opinion is taken as fact and introduced and taught as such even when he may differ from Scriptures or authentic information, though extra Biblical, that would shed light on the actual event/s.

My understanding is that it is in this erroneous extrapolation (opinion made fact) that non-Catholics reject the books they claim as not inspired by God:

Earliest Christian communities[edit]
Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[15] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito’s canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the “memoirs of the Apostles,” which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called “gospels,” and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The Septuagint derives its name from the Latin versio septuaginta interpretum, “translation of the seventy interpreters”, Greek: ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomḗkonta, “translation of the seventy”.[5] However, it was not until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) that the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures came to be called by the Latin term Septuaginta.[6] The Roman numeral LXX (seventy) is commonly used as an abbreviation, as are \mathfrak{G} [7] or G.

In time the LXX became synonymous with the “Greek Old Testament”, i.e. a Christian canon of writings which incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along with additional texts. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include most of the books that are in the Septuagint in their canons; however, Protestant churches usually do not. After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be called “Apocrypha” (originally meaning “hidden” but became synonymous with “of questionable authenticity”). The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version.[28]

All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (4th century).[8]

Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called Βασιλειῶν (“Of Reigns”). In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (Παραλειπομένων—things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve.[8]

Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.

The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

I hope this helps!

Maran atha!

Angel