Apocrypha-Help Needed

[thessalonian]

"I agree with you that Luther might have had some justification for removing the NT deuterocanonicals. But I prefer that we as Protestants do not do that. "

WOW! I can't believe it. No sir we do not agree that is not what I said. If Luther had justification then some of those books might not be the word of God but have some untruth in them and therefore the scriptures are not the innerrant word of God. If this is the case the books should have been removed. I find it amazing that you would make such a statement. Your words put the inerrancy of scripture in to question. What you say is the NT "dueterocanonicals" might not really be scripture, though it appears you "think" they are. It's a sad day indeed when Protestantism has sunken to such lows.

 

[neal4christ]

Fact. Jesus used the Septuigiant. They included the canon.

Excuse me for interrupting, Thessalonian. I have seen this assertion numerous times, and maybe I just live under a rock, but what is the "proof?" I mean, for it to be a fact, it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Could you point me to some "proof," please? I would greatly appreciate it. I have never really looked into this and just recently I have seen and heard this "fact" from various Catholic sources.

Thanks.

God Bless,
Neal

 

[BobRyan]

Actually EVEN in the First century there seemed to be little doubt about the fact that they had the scriptures and "could search them DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostles were in fact - true" Acts 17:11.

The RC idea is that the text should have said "Having been totally confused on what really IS scripture they simply took the Apostle's word on faith alone since they had no other standard by which to evaluate doctrine".

Christ HIMSELF said that the scriptures "Are they which testify of me" speaking to the Jews of their accepted - known - scriptures.

When Peter states of Paul that his writings are included as inspired writings "along with the REST of SCRIPTURE" - his readers did not send back a big RC "Huh??".

And "yet" this is the way our RC bretheren would have had it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[dumbox1]

Y'all are confusing me. Is there really such a thing as an "NT Deuterocanonical," or was that a typo for "OT Deuterocanonical"?

(I've heard of "NT Apocrypha," "NT Pseudepigrapha (sp?), etc., but never "NT Deuteros").

Muchas gracias,

Mark H.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Actually EVEN in the First century there seemed to be little doubt about the fact that they had the scriptures and "could search them DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostles were in fact - true" Acts 17:11.

The RC idea is that the text should have said "Having been totally confused on what really IS scripture they simply took the Apostle's word on faith alone since they had no other standard by which to evaluate doctrine".

Christ HIMSELF said that the scriptures "Are they which testify of me" speaking to the Jews of their accepted - known - scriptures.

When Peter states of Paul that his writings are included as inspired writings "along with the REST of SCRIPTURE" - his readers did not send back a big RC "Huh??".

And "yet" this is the way our RC bretheren would have had it.

In Christ,

Bob

But all of the above Scriptures were the Old Testament, not the New. Even in Acts 17:11, at that time most of the NT was not written. So the above quotes are scarcely authoritative for the existence of the NT canon being accepted in the Apostolic Period. The canon didn't even become an issue to be thought about much until Marcion tried to junk most of the OT in c.140AD

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Fact. Jesus used the Septuigiant. They included the canon.

Excuse me for interrupting, Thessalonian. I have seen this assertion numerous times, and maybe I just live under a rock, but what is the "proof?" I mean, for it to be a fact, it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Could you point me to some "proof," please? I would greatly appreciate it. I have never really looked into this and just recently I have seen and heard this "fact" from various Catholic sources.

Thanks.

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Granted, this is not absolute proof, considering I have not done the research myself, but I do know that in my NRSV, MANY times when Jesus or someone else is quoting from the Old Testament, the notes at the bottom that tell you where He is quoting from says LXX by it. It is also my understanding that there are some interesting differences in the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, and often times when Jesus quotes the OT the translation could only be representing the Greek translation.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Fact. Jesus used the Septuigiant. They included the canon.

Excuse me for interrupting, Thessalonian. I have seen this assertion numerous times, and maybe I just live under a rock, but what is the "proof?" I mean, for it to be a fact, it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Could you point me to some "proof," please? I would greatly appreciate it. I have never really looked into this and just recently I have seen and heard this "fact" from various Catholic sources.

Thanks.

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a list of verses, known by their wording, which differs from other canons to have come from the septuagint. Hope it helps.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html