The Apocrypha was only rejected by the Jews in the post-Temple period (Jamnia/Yavneh). Therefore what the Bereans were reading included the Apocrypha. Are you sure you still want to commend their example?
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!
Thinkingstuff said:Sorry your wrong. When Paul spoke about the scriptures they were talking about the LXX because that was the one in use. I referrenced Jude because it is obvious he takes passages from the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch which are not Canon. The first several hundred years of christianity used the books which are in the LXX (which includes the apocrypha) OT canon had not been established by the earliest christians as yet. The Protestant Bible which we all use follows the Jewish scholars canon (they didn't call it that but had the same import) contains 39 books of the OT which you are familiar with in AD 70. It is strange though that they did not follow the Jewish scholars organization of the OT but the LXX. That says something. It is evident from early christian writings that they used the LXX (apostles and bishops) because quotes from the OT are done in greek which is the translation of the LXX. The first bible canon was with the Apocrypha. Even the earliest protestant bibles contained the apocrhypha though as an appendix. (including the KJB) But it was taken out in the 1800's. So the eveidence is that the Bareans were using the LXX which included the apocryphal books.
Hmmm, except that pesky little Council recorded in Acts 1 that determined what Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 might say about replacing Judas...Bro. James said:God's people have never had to have a council nor conclave to determine what the Scripture might say. God's people are preserved and guided by the Holy Spirit through The Word and the power of God.
Who will be able to stand?
What's in your wallet?
Annsni, I'm curious where you got this information because I have never heard of this. Everything I have read says the apocryphal books were written in and around Alexandria during the last two centuries B.C., and they were an integral part of the LXX.annsni said:I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century. Josephus (30AD to 100AD) speaks a lot of the OT yet specifically mentions just 22 books (which includes our 39 books but many are combined such as both Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, the 12 minor prophets, and Ezra/Nehemiah. Jesus Himself spoke of the "Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). Many others of that time period confirm this - that there were 3 parts to the OT and many named them. This would include Sirach, Philo, Origen, Jerome and even the Counsel of Jamnia. We have no evidence of the LXX containing the Apocrypha before the 4th century.
Where did you hear that from? Early Christians such as Polycarp, Irenaeus and Tertullian (among others) quote from the Deuterocanonicals from the LXX as Scripture making no distinction from the other OT books. Noted Church historian JND Kelly in his book Early Christian Doctrines demonstrates that the Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora had a bulkier bible than the Palestinian Jews, as they included all of the books of the LXX included the DCs. This larger OT passed into early Christian usage and there are no recorded doubts about their status until Melito of Sardis (who had contacts with Palestinian Jews) in the late second century.annsni said:I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century.
Most scholars I've read believe that the first part of the book of Enoch, from which Jude quoted, was from the 2nd century BC. Having read that part of 1 Enoch (I have a copy at home), I can tell you Jude quotes it verbatim in verse 14 and 15 of his epistle.And for the "Assumption of Enoch", the book of Enoch is even questioned as to when it was written. It is quite probable that Jude is older than the book of Enoch. .
Keep your eye on your wallet Bro. James, show me in history where any of these acts were a result of any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church. All persecutions of the Early Church were of pagan nature and granted many Early Fathers were skeptical of the Roman (not catholic Church, b/c there was no "Roman" Catholic Church) Emperor, still they saw this period as a great awaking of the Church. Finally the Church persevered and now was able to worship and finally grow the Church free from persecution and address many heresies openly...hence the Ecumenical Councils.Bro. James said:By councils and conclaves is meant what was born at Nicea in 325 A.D., called by the Emperor of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, aka Constantine the Great. There were others later on, called to expose heresy so they say, to re-establish the orthodoxy. Just who the heretics were is not readily apparent. Then came the inquisitions. Recant or die. Many refused to bow to Rome. They were burned, sawn assunder, drowned and beheaded; their unbaptized children thrown to their deaths at the behest of the "holy see." Now what? The Vatican has apologized profusely in recent years--that does not change the facts.
Sorry, Agnus, if I misunderstood. But you did write, "Since you were knee high to a grasshopper you were taught what to believe", which I thought meant, especially in view of what you had previously posted, that what I believe now is a result of what I was taught in my childhood.Agnus_Dei said:LOL David, read my post again…I never stated you or your parents were “Baptist”, only that I was raised a “Baptist”.
-
No, I didn't "first have a sense of baptist theology" - indeed, at that time I had very little idea of the theology of the various groupings within the non-conformist denominations. But when I started attending services of a baptist church, I found that for everything they believed and did, they gave scriptural support. (I am not saying that every baptist church operates that way, or that no church that is not baptist seeks to use the bible as its final authority). And no one exerted even the smallest inflence on me to go to, and become a member of, a baptist church. Indeed, I did not even know any baptists before going to a baptist church.Agnus_Dei said:As a kid YOU were taught what to believe, you just admitted it…But I highly doubt you suddenly read the Bible and poof, realized that the Baptist Church was the Church, without first having a sense of Baptist Theology or having someone greatly influence you. Something wasn’t sitting well with you as an Anglican that set you on your journey. The same applies to me as a former Baptist now Orthodox Christian.
In XC
-
Bro. James said:The early persecution of New Testament Churches was done by the Jews, with Saul of Tarsus leading the way. The Lord turned him around on the road to Damascus. Paul was persecuted by the Jews and killed by the Romans.
Bro. James said:Are you saying that the council of Nicea was not called by the Roman Emperor, Constantine?
There was a split in 1054…the Patriarchate of Rome essentially excommunicated herself from the remaining four (4) Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus, the year 1054 is the year scholars tag as being the official split,that resulted in the Western and Eastern Church…being the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church.Bro. James said:Not sure what you mean about the Western Roman Church.
It’s my determination that yes, the Patriarchate of Rome is Apostate and sadly seeing herself cut away from the Truth, we see many erroneous doctrines seep into the Western Church…Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary to name a few. We see a new view develop concerning Sacramental Theology. We see the Doctrine of Original Sin develop in which the Reformers built upon and developed farther.Bro. James said:Are you saying they are basically apostate after the 4th century,
Basically yes. I didn’t leave the Baptist Church and eventually become an Eastern Orthodox Christian for nothing.Bro. James said:…with the Eastern-Orthodox having the real key for the right lock?
Vatican II has no bearing on the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor is the Eastern Church concerned with what councils Rome convenes. Many Roman Catholics have left and continue to leave Catholicism due to Vatican II.Bro. James said:There is a group who say Vatican II was unauthorized and that the Holy See has been usurped by heretics. What say you?
I’ll PM you later today or tomorrow… Do you have Microsoft Word? I can send you a step by step Word Document free of charge. PM me your email or I can try and walk you through it though PM's...whatever works best for you.Bro. James said:Yes, I need a step/step direction for quoting.
Still no Eastern Church or Western Church as we know it today, once Istanbul became threaten by Islam, back to the safe haven of Rome they went.Bro. James said:Back to history class: Constantine the Great, 4th century Czar of Rome, born to pagan parents, died a pagan, says he has a divine vision. He favors a religious group some call Christian. He moves his government and religion to Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey today) in his lifetime. Now we have East and West.
Depends on the Emperor at the time, some favored Christianity, some didn’t…the Persians persecuted the Church relentlessly.Bro. James said:What was this relationship in the next 700 years?
Again, 1054 is the year scholars tag as the defining year of the Schism, due to the Bull of excommunication.Bro. James said:Are we saying the big schism did not occur until 1054? What was the substance of this schism?
I also visited a Monastery in Sinai, Egypt in 1994 while in the Navy and witnessed the same…icons and relics and as a young Sailor thought how could people separate themselves from the outside world…honestly I was looking for the bar…But I did see the “Burning Bush” and drink the waters from the well God gave Moses.Bro. James said:I visited, circa 1975 A.D., an Eastern Orthodox meeting house in Antokya, Turkey, near the birthplace of Saul of Tarsus. The only difference I noted between East and West was more icons and bones of dead men--in the East--it certainly was an awesome sight.
Bro. James said:By councils and conclaves is meant what was born at Nicea in 325 A.D., called by the Emperor of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, aka Constantine the Great. There were others later on, called to expose heresy so they say, to re-establish the orthodoxy. Just who the heretics were is not readily apparent. Then came the inquisitions. Recant or die. Many refused to bow to Rome. They were burned, sawn assunder, drowned and beheaded; their unbaptized children thrown to their deaths at the behest of the "holy see." Now what? The Vatican has apologized profusely in recent years--that does not change the facts.
The first chapter in the Book of Acts is a scriptural example of a church business meeting, having no resemblence to the proceedings from Rome and other places for over 1200 years.
We ought to obey God rather than men.
Selah,
Bro. James
annsni said:I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century. Josephus (30AD to 100AD) speaks a lot of the OT yet specifically mentions just 22 books (which includes our 39 books but many are combined such as both Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, the 12 minor prophets, and Ezra/Nehemiah. Jesus Himself spoke of the "Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). Many others of that time period confirm this - that there were 3 parts to the OT and many named them. This would include Sirach, Philo, Origen, Jerome and even the Counsel of Jamnia. We have no evidence of the LXX containing the Apocrypha before the 4th century.
As for Jude, in the "Assumption of Moses", we have no manuscript evidence that what we ascribe to it was actually in that book. It is most likely that what Jude wrote was historical and he put down the facts of that. Reading Zechariah 3:1-2 sheds some light onto the subject, IMO.
And for the "Assumption of Enoch", the book of Enoch is even questioned as to when it was written. It is quite probable that Jude is older than the book of Enoch. Besides which, even wrong books have some truth to it. So both the book of Enoch and Jude having similar statements doesn't mean that the book of Enoch is canon - and since the Jews didn't accept it as such, we shouldn't either.