• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

Inquiring Mind

New Member
I condone neither Josephus nor Jamnea Council.
Good and rightfully so.

Jamnea Council just confirmed what the Jewish Believers before Jesus Christ' time believed and practiced.
Not according to select verses in the new testament and not according to the writings of the early church fiathers

The reason why I mentioned the Jamnea council is because it shows the such stance.
Their stance was anti-christian. Their 5 judgements prove that.

Do you believe that the Jamnea Council invented a bew criteria which didn't exist before?
Yes!

They just simply acknowledged what was believed before.
Do you have any proof of that? The LXX contained all that was recognized as inspired by the Greek speaking Jewish nation.

The people who killed Jesus had held the Bible(OT), and therefore those Bible were wrong ? Those people who killed Jesus must have had a certain criteria for the Bible canon, were the criteria wrong because they killed Jesus ?

They killed Jesus.
They denied that he was the Messiah.
They denied the writings that would eventually become the New Testament.
 

Inquiring Mind

New Member
1. If you read the Bible books for each, you can clearly confirm that they claim the revelation by Holy Spirit or Words from God.
There are several in the Old Testament that don't claim

2. Hebrew lange was the language of the then God's people, while the God's people have been diversified into thousands of nations in NT period.
Greek was the representative language of gentiles at that time.
Hebrew was. It was the representative language of the Jews as well, since they lost use of the Hebrew, it fell away just as the Latin did. As English replaced Latin, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as native language with Greek being the second language. It's the same as our Hispanic community now. They speak in Spanish to each other, but when writing and conversing with the rest of the world, it is English.

Isaiah said " Jehovah said..." Jeremiah said " Jehovah said.."..

If you read the bible and AP, we can clearly tell the difference.
What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following is an inspired book," this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

These tests failing, most Fundamentalists fall back on the notion that "the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired," an exercise in subjectivism akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible?, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical organization "Radio Bible Class," lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is, "Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment."

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.
 

El_Guero

New Member
Good posts!

xx - get a discipler!

:thumbs:

Joseph M. Smith said:
Protestant churches generally (the Episcopal Church is an exception) use only the Old Testament books as listed by the rabbis gathered at Jamnia ca. 90 AD. This council was called by Jewish leaders to clarify a list of canonical writings in order to defend Judaism against the claims of Christianity.

One can certainly affirm divine leadership for the decision to limit the Old Testament to those books, as the extracanonical books add nothing doctrinally to them, and in some cases are a bit on the fanciful side.


Darron Steele said:
Yes, the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint did indeed include books that are not Scripture, but no the earliest leaders of the church did not accept them as Scripture.

When in discussions involving Catholics or that could involve Catholics, I sometimes use the old Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for Scripture. It includes some of those non-Scripture books, but my use of it does not mean that I consider those additional books to be Scripture.

First century historian Josephus was a Palestinian Jew just like Jesus and the apostles. In Against Apion 1:8 Josephus reported that no books had been adopted as divine by Palestinian Jews since Persian rule; he describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority.”

I believe that neither Jesus nor the apostles who ran the New Testament church accepted these other pre-New Testament books. Some later Christians did.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Inquiring Mind said:
Good and rightfully so.

Not according to select verses in the new testament and not according to the writings of the early church fiathers

Their stance was anti-christian. Their 5 judgements prove that.

Yes!

Do you have any proof of that? The LXX contained all that was recognized as inspired by the Greek speaking Jewish nation.



They killed Jesus.
They denied that he was the Messiah.
They denied the writings that would eventually become the New Testament.

I would not respond to every point of yours but want to remind your one specific point as you focus on the Jamnia Council.
We often refer to CNN, or History of Roman Empire etc as neutral witnesses on the controversial issues.
Jews killed Jesus and our sins killed Jesus as well. We don't deny the true reports by the Muslim media though they reject the Christian truth, as long as their reports are based on the true occurence
You said Jamnia invented such criteria which didn't exist before.
How about Josephus? You pointed out his immoral life or unfaithful life.
So do you believe that historians invented such criteria which never existed before? Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that there were certain criteria about the Bible canon even though it was not crystal clear. There are many commentaries and exegies on the books of OT, but no commentaries on the Apocrypha.
Dead Sea Scrolls show many commentaries on the books of OT Bible but there is no commentaries on the Apocrypha, even though there are some Apocrypha like Genesis AP, Tobit, Sirach, etc found in Qumran, which don't have the commentaries.
Apparently there existed some criteria on the Bible canon, before Christ.
There are only a few books which are controversial on its canonity which may be " Esther and Song of Solomon" but I believe only Esther could be arguable as Song of Songs clearly contain messianic teachings.
Among DSS, Manual of Discipline, Damascus Document, War Rule, Florilegium, Testimonia, Melchizedek Documents quote 39 books of Old Testament even including Esther, which means that all the OT in the canon were quoted as the authority of God's word.
Please read the "Dead Sea Scrolls Today" written by James VanderKam, page 150 and 151, published by Eerdmans.
Apparently there were Bible canon for OT before Christ which included No Apocrypha. The reason why we haven't heard about such canon very often or more clearly was because almost nobody argued about which books were in the canonized Bible as almost all the Jews had the consensus about the genuine Bible as we Protestant Christians have today.
Bible Canon doesn't depend on Jamnia Council, nor on Josephus. It was handed over thru the true believers all the time and it coincides with many discoveries such as Dead Sea Scrolls, and with Josephus and with Jamnia Council, and with Jewish Sages exegies, Targums etc.

I know there have been vehement claims by Roman Catholic to support Apocrypha or Septuagint. Septuagint contains many ridiculous translations and contradictions between the verses. The story that 70 people translated the Hebrew Torah into exactly the same Greek LXX is a ridiculous hoax as it is not Word-to-Word translation, but thought-to-thought translation.
The reason why Roman Catholic try to put the most value on LXX is because it contains Apocrypha. The existing LXX was written in 4 century 300 years after Jesus Christ. They modified OT reflecting NT.

Holding on Apocrypha is like drowning man's catching at a straw to hold the paganism such as prayer to the dead, prayer for the dead, to justify the suicide and assassination etc.
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Inquiring Mind said:
There are several in the Old Testament that don't claim
Hebrew was. It was the representative language of the Jews as well, since they lost use of the Hebrew, it fell away just as the Latin did. As English replaced Latin, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as native language with Greek being the second language. It's the same as our Hispanic community now. They speak in Spanish to each other, but when writing and conversing with the rest of the world, it is English.

Aramaic was used only in a few spots of OT such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel because the writers quoted the letters addressed to Kings of Babylon, Persia in the original languages used in the letters to the Kings.
If any Israelite write a letter to George Bush, he would write it in English, and when he write a book in Hebrew, he may quote the letter in English which is the original language of the letter.

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14), Jesus mentioned Jot and Tittle( Mt 5:18) which are found only in Hebrew, His title at the Cross was written in Latin, Greek, and in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The coins found at Bar-Korba Revolt shows the Hebrerw inscription.
Paul delivered the address in Hebrew to the people of Jerusalem ( Acts 21:40, 22:2)
What you know about the language used by Israelites in the biblical times is wrong.

What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following is an inspired book," this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

These tests failing, most Fundamentalists fall back on the notion that "the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired," an exercise in subjectivism akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible?, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical organization "Radio Bible Class," lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is, "Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment."

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

Gospels of NT were written by Disciples. Do you disbelieve these Gospels?
Do you doubt about the authority of Peter's writings?
What about Apostle John's writings?

Read the followings:

1 Cor 7:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

In other words, in many other Epistles Paul received the commandments from God. Moreover, he was the one who saw clearly Jesus Christ after his resurrection. Do you doubt about his authority to write the Bible books ? Among 27 NT books, 13 were written by Paul, 4 Gospels were by Disciples, Acts were written by Luke who accompanied Paul all the time.
What you may argue about are Jude and James as Martin Luther raised the question about James.

Throughout the Bible we can have no doubt about the canonicity of Bible books which the Protestant Christians have today, but we see the huge difference between Bible and Apocrypha, like the difference between Bible and novels or history books.

Any doctrines built upon Apocrypha is like a strawman.
 
Last edited:

Inquiring Mind

New Member
"What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots'[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]." Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).

"Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? Or, who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.'[Ps. 19:1-3]." Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5 (c. A.D. 80).

"'Be just in your judgement' [Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving' [Sirach 4:31]." Didache, 4:3-5 (A.D. 90).
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
In your logic, the commentaries can become Bible because they refer to the Bible and much of its contents coincide with the Bible doctrines.

The Canon or qualification of Bible is not in such way. We can feel, discern and find which are the true and genuine Bible as we read 1 John 2:27.
You mentioned some points where Bible and AP are consistent each other, but there are much more verses where those AP differ from the Bible.
I am quite sure that the current Bible canon of Protestants are quite correct.
If you say so, even Mormon's Bible by Joseph Smith may be added, which is not right.
 

Inquiring Mind

New Member
The Apocrypha...
This is what the fundamentalists call the 7 books in Catholic Bibles that protestant Bibles do not have. Catholics call them 'Deuterocanonicals'. They are, Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also include parts of Daniel and Esther. There are many other books, called Apocrypha, by Catholics that are not considered inspired. I believe Protestants merely put those 7 books in the same pot and called them all Apocrypha.

The Problem...
Non Catholics insist that the 'Council of Trent' added those seven books to bring the total number of books to 73. They point to the fact that the 'Council of Jamnia' removed those books from the Bible in 90-95 A.D., so they were never in the 'Bible' from that date on.
The Solution...

Absolutely right, for the second part of the problem. The 'Council of Jamnia' did indeed remove those 7 books. The fact of the matter is that Jamnia was not a Christian council, but a Jewish one, called specifically to counter Christianity. In keeping with their practice of presenting only half truths, the non-Catholic detractors fail to mention that fact. The Apostles and Christians in general, used the Greek'Septuagint', also called LXX, as their Bible in the first century. This upset the Jews, so they decided to call a council to deal with the matter. Keep in mind that the Jewish temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and all of the Jewish priests were killed. Now they were fearful that Christianity would overtake them. The Septuagint is the Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew, which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century B.C., and it had all 46 books including the Deuterocanonicals. The Jews decided to revise the canon of the Old Testament and they wanted to remove references that would be useful to Christians.

They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included.
1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

The seven books did not meet all 4 criteria set up by the Jews...
Baruch was not written in Palestine. Disqualified by reason 3.
Sirach and 1Maccabees were written after 400 B.C.. Disqualified by reason 4.
Tobit and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and outside of Palestine.
Disqualified by reasons 2 and 3.
Judith was written in Aramaic. Disqualified by reason 2.
Wisdom was written in Greek. Disqualified by reason 2.
2Maccabees was written after 400 B.C. and in Greek. Disqualified by reasons 2 and 4.

Christians continued to use the Septuagint. In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the 'Vulgate' which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don't forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther's own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were "added" at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren't there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a "reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament". They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it. Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council?

Protestants have repeatedly said there is no evidence that Deuterocanonical books are inspired as none of them are referenced in the New Testament. This is absolutely not true as there are several references to the "Deuters", and at least two from apocrypha which I have found...

Bible references (NT) to Apocryphal books:

1. Jude 1:9, Yet when Michael the archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he did not venture to bring against him an accusation of blasphemy, but said, "May the Lord rebuke thee."
This is only in the Apocryphal book, 'The Assumption of Moses'.

2. Jude 1:14, Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones..." This prophecy is from the Apocryphal Book of 'Enoch', 1:9.

3. 2Tim 3:8, "Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth, for they are corrupt in mind, reprobate as regards the faith." Although this is a reference to Ex 7:11, the 'magicians' of Pharaoh, they are not named in Exodus. They are found in the Apocryphal book 'Gospel of Nicodemus' 5:1. They are also found in the 'Narrative of Aeneas' Account of the Suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ', 5:4.

Bible references (NT) to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.: These references show legitimacy to these books that Protestants rejected.

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2Macc 7:1-29. How do you, who do not have 2Maccabees, explain that? Note! The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1King 17:23 and 2King 4:36.
2. Heb 11:38, "...wandering in the deserts, mountains..." This is found in 1Macc 2:28-30 and 2Macc 5:27.
3. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.
4. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.
5. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7
6. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6
7. Heb 1:3, "...brightness of His glory..." Similar to Wis 7:26-27
8. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.
9. 1Cor 6:13, "...food for the belly and belly for food..." Similar to Sir 36:20
10. Rom 1:18-32, GOD is known by the things He has created...Similar to Wis 13:1-9
11. Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Similar to Tob 4:16
12. Lk 14:13, "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.
13. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." Similar to Tob 13:21.
14. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.
15. Mt 18:15, "But if thy brother sin against thee..." Similar to Sir 19:13
16. Mt 25:36, "...sick and you visited me..." Similar to Sir 7:39.
17. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
18. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." Found in Wis 2:13.
19. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.
20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.
21. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.
22. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.
23. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.
24. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.
25. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

These are just a few that I have found, and with very little effort. Most of them were found just by reading the cross references in Bibles. There are many more.

Clearly from what I have shown, the seven disputed books should have not been removed by Protestants from the Bible.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
True Christian believers stand firm with the True Bible Canon only, not with the Whorish Idol Worshippers Apocrypha, not with goddes worshippers canon.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Inquiring Mind said:
I stand firm with the early church and not the Jews.
But, thankfully, they don't stand with you.
The early church did not accept the apocrypha.
And the Jews certainly didn't. The Jews never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. which excludes all of the apocryphal books by well over 150 years. That one factor in itself excludes the apocrypha. Since the apostles were all Jew believers they would also have excluded the same spurious books.
Clearly from what I have shown, the seven disputed books should have not been removed by Protestants from the Bible.
Who says they were removed? First there are fourteen, not seven. Secondly they were added by the RCC, not taken out by the Protestants. In other words they were never there in the first place. I believe you have some historical facts wrong. You must be reading the wrong history.
DHK
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
It's so wearying

DHK said:
But, thankfully, they don't stand with you.
The early church did not accept the apocrypha.
And the Jews certainly didn't. The Jews never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. which excludes all of the apocryphal books by well over 150 years. That one factor in itself excludes the apocrypha. Since the apostles were all Jew believers they would also have excluded the same spurious books.
Who says they were removed? First there are fourteen, not seven. Secondly they were added by the RCC, not taken out by the Protestants. In other words they were never there in the first place. I believe you have some historical facts wrong. You must be reading the wrong history.
DHK
It's so exhausting to tell people basic historical facts over and over while they simply refuse to accept them. It's like arguing with someone for several minutes and with provision of several pieces of evidence to prove that George Washington was our first president. If they refuse to believe it, you finally just have to throw your hands in the air, walk away, and wonder if they were pulling your leg all along.

It is flagrantly false that "the Jews" never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. Some Jews--such as the unsaved Pharisees at Jamnia--never accepted any book written after 400 B.C., which excludes all of the New Testament books by well over 150 years. That one factor itself excludes the NT. Since the apostles were all Jews they would also have excluded the NT? As for "never there in the first place," the same councils that delineated the NT canon did so for the OT as well, and that canon remained in place until the Protestants cut parts of it out. It doesn't matter what history you read, as long as it's from reliable, credible scholarship--and I don't mean RCC or OC, I mean objective (as opposed to the sort of fiction made up by the author of Trail of Blood, which he recanted later).
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Taufgesinnter said:
It is flagrantly false that "the Jews" never accepted any book written after 400 B.C. Some Jews--such as the unsaved Pharisees at Jamnia--never accepted any book written after 400 B.C., which excludes all of the New Testament books by well over 150 years. That one factor itself excludes the NT. Since the apostles were all Jews
Your understanding of the Bible is lacking.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Paul delineates only three groups of people in the NT: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God or the Christians.
Once a Gentile or a pagan became a Christian he was no longer a pagan, he was a Christian.
Once a Jew became a Christian he was no longer a Jew he was a Christian. They became ostracized by their own family. Read the story of Saul who went and persecuted all that were Christians throwing them into jails. These were former Jews, now Christians. In Acts 8 there was a great persecution against the church. It wasn't the Roman government at that time, it was the Jewish nation that was persecuting the Christians. It was people like Saul of Tarsus.

Jews of today still don't accept the NT. They only accept the OT.
Jews have never accepted the NT. They only accept the OT.
The Apostles were not Jews. They are Christians with a Jewish background. There is a big difference. They were first called Christians at Antioch. But they were not called Jews.

The Jews of the Old Testament, the authors of the OT books were saved in that they believed God, Jehovah. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness--and he was called the friend of God. He was saved. David was a man after God's own heart. He was saved. These were men that believed God, and God imputed righteousness unto them. You can read about many more of them in Hebrews chapter 11.
DHK
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
My understanding of the Bible was not at issue

DHK said:
Your understanding of the Bible is lacking.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Paul delineates only three groups of people in the NT: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God or the Christians.
Once a Gentile or a pagan became a Christian he was no longer a pagan, he was a Christian.
Once a Jew became a Christian he was no longer a Jew he was a Christian. They became ostracized by their own family. Read the story of Saul who went and persecuted all that were Christians throwing them into jails. These were former Jews, now Christians. In Acts 8 there was a great persecution against the church. It wasn't the Roman government at that time, it was the Jewish nation that was persecuting the Christians. It was people like Saul of Tarsus.

Jews of today still don't accept the NT. They only accept the OT.
Jews have never accepted the NT. They only accept the OT.
The Apostles were not Jews. They are Christians with a Jewish background. There is a big difference. They were first called Christians at Antioch. But they were not called Jews.

The Jews of the Old Testament, the authors of the OT books were saved in that they believed God, Jehovah. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness--and he was called the friend of God. He was saved. David was a man after God's own heart. He was saved. These were men that believed God, and God imputed righteousness unto them. You can read about many more of them in Hebrews chapter 11.
DHK
That was certainly a major tangent. You used the phrase, referring to the apostles, that they were all "Jew believers." I changed the term, when paraphrasing you, to "Jews" to correct your grammar. I was already fully familiar with the threeway categorization you cite above. You are aware, of course, that it was not an ironclad rule of nomenclature, since Paul referred to himself as a Jew after his conversion. Also, AFAIK, Jews find it extremely offensive to have "Jew" used as an adjective instead of "Jewish," so I made correction. Further, I made reference to the unsaved Pharisees--they were not Christians--at Jamnia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Taufgesinnter said:
I made reference to the unsaved Pharisees--they were not Christians--at Jamnia.
Of course they were not saved. They were Jews, of the nation of Israel The only Scriptures acceptable to them were the OT Scriptures, the 39 books as we know them today. They absolutely refused the apocrypha and any book that was written after 400 B.C., as does every Jew today. After the cross every Jew is unsaved no matter how devout they are. They have rejected their Messiah.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Yes, they were Jews and not Christians. So what! That gives more credence to why they accept only the 39 books of the OT as the canon of the OT, and not the Apocrypha nor the NT.
DHK
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not at all sure I follow your argument: are you saying that, because the Jews and in particular Jamnia/Yavneh, rejected the Apocrypha/ DCs and the NT, that we should likewise reject those books?
 

Darron Steele

New Member
Jesus, the first Christians of the early chapters of Acts, as well as the apostles were Palestinian Jews. Hence, I do not believe that they would have accepted any non-Scripture pre-New Testament books, such as the apocrypha or similar literature, to be Scripture. I do not believe that I am in a position to second guess the first Person mentioned or His personally-commissioned apostles.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Matt Black said:
I'm not at all sure I follow your argument: are you saying that, because the Jews and in particular Jamnia/Yavneh, rejected the Apocrypha/ DCs and the NT, that we should likewise reject those books?
I was accused of making a false statement.
"The Jews never accepted any book before 400 A.D." was my original statement which I still stand by, and is considered as a lie to some. No, it is the truth. That is the reason I went to the trouble to define what a Jew is and why they accept only the OT without the Apocrypha.
This is a devastating argument to those who argue in favor of the Apocrypha.

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.
Neither have the Protestants.

The only ones to accept the Apocrypha as being inspired Scripture are the Cathollics. It supports some of the their more heretical doctrines, and the books themselves contain other errors.
DHK
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
DHK said:
I was accused of making a false statement.
"The Jews never accepted any book before 400 A.D." was my original statement which I still stand by, and is considered as a lie to some. No, it is the truth. That is the reason I went to the trouble to define what a Jew is and why they accept only the OT without the Apocrypha.
This is a devastating argument to those who argue in favor of the Apocrypha.

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.
Neither have the Protestants.

The only ones to accept the Apocrypha as being inspired Scripture are the Cathollics. It supports some of the their more heretical doctrines, and the books themselves contain other errors.
DHK
Unfortunately, a large part of that last post is untrue. "The" Jews is untrue; "some" Jews is true. Even today, Ethiopian Jews accept part of the OT that other Jews reject. But this whole thing is useless by this point, because it has degenerated into "Yes they did," and "No, they didn't."
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Taufgesinnter said:
Unfortunately, a large part of that last post is untrue. "The" Jews is untrue; "some" Jews is true. Even today, Ethiopian Jews accept part of the OT that other Jews reject. But this whole thing is useless by this point, because it has degenerated into "Yes they did," and "No, they didn't."
No, The Jews as a whole accept the MT of the OT as their canon of Scripture. I will assert that to my dying days. It is a true fact. The only "Jews" that may say otherwise would be liberals, the equivalent of the liberal faction of Christianity who deny the virgin birth of Christ and His deity. I am speaking of Jews, those who are the children of Israel and have not apostasized from being so.
DHK
 
Top