M
MNathaniel
Guest
Are you Christie? Haha. Spending so much time going over so many of his points in so much detail, I’m honestly wondering.
- Status
M
MarkRome
Guest
Saying someone “ripped my heart out” doesn’t imply that they literally ripped my heart out. I hear this argument often from Protestants, focusing on semantics and saying that the books stayed in the binding rather than acknowledging that what Luther did was wrong. You, and I, would never stand for anyone doing this to the New Testament today but Luther gets a pass for some reason.
No, it didn’t. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras-the-canon-of-hippo-carthage-trent.html
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
It’s more than just semantics. And it’s more than just using it as slang like “you ripped my heart out.” And Luther isn’t just getting a pass. Like Christie said in his book, and during the debate, he had historical and scriptural reasons for rejecting them. Again, he could not find them in the Targums like he could with the books of the Hebrew Bible. He discovered the Jews from antiquity (as well as many early Catholics) rejected them. They all contain errors and contradictions with previous and later inspired Scripture. They were all written after prophecy ceased after 400 BC. And none were written by miracle-performing prophets to validate their writings were God-breathed, like the books of the Hebrew Bible and NT were. So, Luther had plenty of valid reasons (and he was not alone: Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus, the Glossa Ordinaria, Jerome, etc.) for rejecting them. Again, it had nothing to do with them disagreeing with “his theology.” That is revisionism.
According to Christie’s book, when he said “these (Ezras and Nehemiah) are the ‘modern names’ of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, respectfully,” he was referring to how they are used NOW, but NOT how they were used during the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. While the Latins and the Greeks separated them that way, Christie explains elsewhere that these specific councils utilized the Septuagint for their OT lists, and back then 2 Esdras in the LXX was the combined book of Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras in the LXX was what we call 3 Esdras today. And the latter included more that just parts of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but ALSO 2 1/2 chapters NOT found in Catholic OTs today. It was Jerome who separated Ezra-Nehemiah into 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate. The original 1 Esdras then became 3 Esdras, which according to the Glossa Ordinaria WAS in printed copies of the Vulgate. So, Dave Armstrong’s article you posted left all this pertinent information out. Plus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia DID state: “Trent REMOVED 3 Esdras.” If you don’t believe me, look it up for yourself.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
LOL! I have Christie’s book, and I watched both the debate and his follow up post interview debate a few times. So, I can understand why you would think that.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
LOL! No problem. It was a lot of info, but all verifiable. Look up the New Catholic Encyclopedia where it states, “The Council of Trent removed 3 Esdras.” According to the Glossa Ordinaria, this book WAS in printed copies of the Vulgate, which also state that ALL the Deuteros were “apocrypha” and “are NOT in the canon.” This book was in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, but was called 1 Esdras back then (the name change occurred later when Jerome separated the single book of Ezra-Nehemiah in his Vulgate).
A lot of this was covered in Christie’s book, as well as his debate with Trent Horn, as well as his recent post debate interview.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Good question. 
:+1:t2:
:+1:t2:
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
Uh, he rejected the book of James as uninspired because it didn’t square with his “faith alone” theology. He called it an “epistle of straw”.
You can continue to defend Luther all you want. I am moving on. The debate has taken place. There are plenty of responses out there that I am sure you have already read. Repeating them here won’t change anyone’s mind about it. Cheers.
K
knightfall
Guest
Sorry for being a bit dense, but was that a yes or a no?LOL! I have Christie’s book, and I watched both the debate and his follow up post interview debate a few times. So, I can understand why you would think that.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Luther only wrote that about James in the Preface to his first German edition of the New Testament. It is absent in the subsequent ones. Regardless, Luther ended up keeping James as well as the other 26 new testament books and even his first German translation, so it’s a moot point. It would only be relevant if he omitted the book of James itself, which he didn’t. And the only reason he said it in his first edition was because he was approaching the book of James as a Catholic, despite being the father of the reformation. And as a Catholic he would’ve understood “not by faith alone“ in James chapter 2 as refuting justification by faith alone. After that, Luther understood that James was talking about the result of one’s faith is the demonstration of works, not the means of it. If one is truly saved by faith alone, they will demonstrate it by their works (James 2:18)… If they don’t, then their faith is not genuine and is “dead.” This is the difference between his understanding of the epistle between his first edition and the later ones. So the historical context of why Luther initially said that needs to be understood, rather than taking a snippet of what he said out of its historical context. Yet, non-protestants will overlook the early Catholic writings which omitted the book of James and other books in the New Testament, but get down on Luther for questioning this single book, but then corrected himself later. Why the double standard? Luther was simply going through the same investigative process that early Catholics did, the difference is he ended up keeping all of the New testament books, including James, in every edition of his German translation, unlike some of his Catholic forefathers. So Luthers issue with the New Testament was different than the old testament, because he had historical and theological reasons for keeping the books in the New Testament in, while he had historical and theological reasons for omitting the Deuterocanon.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
This is an argument I never understood. Muslims try to use the Bible to disprove Christianity as a whole. Religious debates between Christian groups, that accept the Bible as divinely expired are always going to appeal to the Bible as a rule of faith, because it is a standard that each side side readily accepts.
People will try to say the Church fathers were closer to Protestant than Catholic because they quoted the Bible. Of course they did. It’s weird how people think “believing The Bible”, somehow means “not being Catholic”.
N
NuntioBusiness
Guest
Both debaters argue utilizing so called LXX. This is in error.
The is no such thing as the LXX. There are what is presently called septuaginta, most of which are Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (aleph), or Origen’s Hexapla, all of which are post Christ’s ascension.
The reason many ‘readings’ are similar in septuaginta, is because they are back translated from the NT, and not the other way round. In other words, septuaginta, are mostly translated NT texts into Greek, masquerading as original Greek works.
Evidence? Plenty (and can post as desired).
A for instance:
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
Funny stuff but i just couldnt finish listening to the scarasim.
I pray someday this guy wakes up to the idea that the Catholic “doctrine of scripture” does not now nor ever has been “because Jesus quoted from it” (the LXX). This seems to be his entire platform. If it were in fact the case he would have a very good point. But its not and he sure has spent much energy refuting what does not exist and uses this bright red herring alonge with much sarcasim to mislead and entertain people.
He states that the LXX is “the fairytail Catholics have built a doctrine from” and that “before 1960 people did not value the LXX and did not think it had any authorty at all”. Either he is contradicting himself or the Catholic Church would not have come up with a “doctrine of scriptute” till sometime after 1960. This alone is laughable.
Now for someone truly open to the concept that the Holy Spirit did infact include the deutrocanon as scripture in the EARLY church as only He can, then and only then can, you see that the “Jusus quoted from the LXX” argument is no longer the “doctrine” but “evidence of”. When a Catholic uses the “Jesus quoted from the LXX” it is not in justification of a doctrine as the presenter has mislead his listeners, it is simply a show of evidence.
I know most Protestants who have debated this subject cannot grasp this concept and continue using their own concept of empirically proving “how do you know Jesus quoted from the LXX?” as if doing so proves or disproves a doctrine. If they were to put the horse in FRONT of the cart it might become more clear.
Peace!!!
N
NuntioBusiness
Guest
Funny? Can you give the time indexes which were “funny” so we can discuss it?
Show me one thing wrong that we can discuss, use time indexes please.
'Taint no such thing as “the Septuagint”. What you are actually referring to is Origen’s Hexapla:
The so called “Septuagint”, really being “septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)” of Origen’s Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus and really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).
The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD , and the mention by the so-called “Letter of Aristeas”, based on an unfounded and mostly discredited “legend”, is seriously problematic.
“… Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “ Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century . In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. …” - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf
“… the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical , in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer . Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago ( De bibliorum textibus originalibus , Oxon., 1705) …” - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray
De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4.. : Humphrey Hody : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint
https://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint2.htm
N
NuntioBusiness
Guest
septuaginta:
“… [some] use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. … Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the [those use and] have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. …” - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf
"… [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn’t translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God’s Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). …
… Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland’s Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. … [page 46]
… [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. …" - T he Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.
See also The Mythological Septuagint - https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/...r S Ruckman - The Mythological Septuagint.pdf
Last edited:
N
NuntioBusiness
Guest
septuaginta:
1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis , op. cit ., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen’s 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually “see” and “use” is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit ., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures , 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen’s 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a “Catholicized Jehovah’s Witness” at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics! - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] -https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/i... Nolen Jones - Which Version Is The Bible.pdf
At time index; 31:09, Dr. Phil Stringer, quotes Dewey Beagle (sp?) stating that before 1960, &c …
So, can you show me before 1960, where a majority of persons stated that septuaginta was valuable and authoritative? I will accept any sources. Please cite them.
So it is not a contradiction. It is quotation in context, not at all contrary to what Dr. Phil Stringer has stated at the beginning. It’s a matter of timing.
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
For starters you can just listen to the audience. One indicator is when they begin to laugh.
But really? Chick publications on a Catholic forum as evidence?
that is funny!!!Yep. I heard you the 1st time and I cant imagine any discussion that would be productive here.
Peace!!!
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
This is true. During his 2004 debate with Gary Michuta, James White pointed this out that there was no real “Septuagint” in antiquity with a defined set of books, and that the “septuaginta” we have today are actually later Christian copies, not earlier Jewish ones. Christie even mentioned in his book that there were different versions of it in antiquity that contained different books, many not found in Catholic OTs today. It is not until we get to the late 4th Century (and later) that we find an OT canon that even resembles a Catholic OT (and even then, not consistently). And as Christie brought out in his debate with Trent Horn, the reason why the canonical lists in the 4th Century Church Councils differed from Jerome’s Vulgate (particularly the canonical status of 3 Esdras) was because the Councils were going by a version of the Septuagint that contained 3 Esdras (which was called “1 Esdras” back then), and “2 Esdras” was simply the combined book of Ezra-Nehemiah. But Jerome’s Vulgate separated 2 Esdras into 2 books (Ezra & Nehemiah, the former calling it 1 Esdras & the latter 2 Esdras).
The reason Christie pointed this out was because the nomenclature of “1 Esdras” had changed from these local councils, and by the time Florence came around “1 Esdras” & “2 Esdras” were Ezra & Nehemiah, respectfully. The reason this is significant is because the 4th Century Church Councils considered “3 Esdras” to be just as much “divine OT canonical Scripture” as the Protocanon & Deuterocanon. And many ECFs prior to these councils considered 3 Esdras to be Scripture. And as Christie pointed out in the debate, the New Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly stated that the Council of Trent “removed” 3 Esdras from the Bible.
But the point about bringing up the Septuagint was that when we see citations from it in the NT, it ONLY cites the books from the Protocanon, not the Deuterocanon. And since the “septuaginta” are later Christian works in antiquity, that further demonstrates the early church did not consider these 7 extra books part of the OT canon. Otherwise, the “septuaginta” citations from the NT would have cited at least one of them, explicitly as Scripture, with one of these phrases (like “it is written” etc.). But it doesn’t, even once.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I watched all 5 parts of this a couple of years ago. Did you notice that @adf417 did not even attempt to address the arguments you presented regarding the late date of the earliest “Septuagint,” but merely dismissed them, once he saw they came from Chick Publications? Regardless if whether or not we agree with a particular source, it does not follow that everything they say is false. The arguments still remain unanswered.
A
adf417
Guest
Sure he did please re-read 1st paragraph in post 72.
As long as you dont like the answers given to you i dont suspect this will ever change.
Peace!!!
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
It’s not about not liking the answers. It’s about not addressing the ones being presented, which was not only was there not just a single “Septuagint” in antiquity, but rather “septuaginta” which had different books in them. But also, that the copies of the earliest “Septuagint” we have are CHRISTIAN copies, not JEWISH copies. This is important, because the original “Septuagint” was Jewish in origin, not Christian, which was originally limited to the 5 Books of Moses (ie: the Law), not the rest of the OT. There are no preChristian copies of the Septuagint that contain the entire OT. The point of the videos he posted was that the reason there are so many quotes from the Septuagint in the NT, is because the LATER copies of the NT take those passages from LATER copies of the Septuagint well into the church age, not from EARLIER copies of the Septuagint from before the time of Christ. And even when it does quote from the Septuagint- specifically AS SCRIPTURE - it ONLY cites books from the Protocanon, not the Deuterocanon. These were the arguments not addressed.
- Status