Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Old Testament Canon (An Eastern Orthodox perspective)
Conciliar Press ^ | David Lieuwen

Posted on 11/06/2011 4:40:35 PM PST by rzman21

Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon by Daniel Lieuwen

When the Church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as Scripture. The Old Testament used in the early Church throughout the Roman world was not the Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Old Testament into Greek called the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX was translated in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the middle of the third century B.C., and was the standard Old Testament in the synagogues throughout the Hellenistic world (including Palestine) at the time of Christ.

In addition to the books included in a Protestant Old Testament, the LXX contained a number of other books now commonly referred to as Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical. Some of these books are Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, and a longer version of Daniel.

The LXX is based on a very different text of the Old Testament from the Masoretic text, on which modern English translations are based. For instance, in many places the wording is quite different, and the content of the books also differs—generally the LXX text is longer, but there are also interesting additions to the Masoretic text that are not found in the LXX. The text on which the LXX is based is as ancient as the Masoretic text, as testified by the Dead Sea scrolls and many other ancient witnesses.

A Standardized Jewish Text

Judaism was quite fluid at the time of Christ. There were seven distinct sects of the Jews in the early first century, according to Eusebius. The different sects accepted the authority of different collections of books (e.g., the Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the five books of the Prophet Moses, the Torah), and there were often significant differences in the composition of the books they accepted in common. Sometimes the same sect might even make use of multiple text bases, or as scholars call them, text traditions. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls, containing the sacred texts of the Essene sect of Judaism, show evidence of the Masoretic, Samaritan, and LXX text bases.

However, with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an intense standardization process began. Only the Pharisee and the Samaritan sects of Judaism survived this process. The collection of Old Testament books into what eventually became the Masoretic text was begun by the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia, somewhere between AD 80 and 100, but was not completed until the sixth century. During this period, The Wisdom of Sirach, which was eventually excluded from the Masoretic text, was sometimes included in the Jewish canon, while Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, all of which eventually found a place in that text, were sometimes excluded.

The Pharisees wanted a standardized Hebrew text of the Old Testament partly because of the large number of Christian Jews. The older LXX version of the Old Testament contained many messianic passages that the Christians could use to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the early Christians charged that the Pharisees had deliberately truncated the canon to avoid messianic prophecy pointing toward Jesus Christ (see Justin Martyr, Trypho 71–73).

For instance, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX says, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”—this clearly refers to the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. On the other hand, the Pharisees’ version of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text only mentions a “young woman.” Moreover, many of the wisdom texts from the Deuterocanonical books, particularly Sirach, were commonly used by the Church as catechetical reading for converts. It is not surprising that the Pharisees would want to exclude these “Church texts” from their official Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

Since the Jews had never set an exact limit on the number of books in the Old Testament, it was not inconsistent with their own faith for the Pharisees to limit the books they wanted to include in their revised Hebrew canon. Like the early Church, the Jews of Christ’s time were not united around a particular set of texts (beyond the Torah, that is). They were organized around a liturgical life in the temple and synagogue. For this liturgical life, they came to use texts in the services. However, the liturgical life preceded the production of the texts and formed their context. Historically, as the Jewish faith developed in the synagogues and in temple worship during the postexilic period (the four to five hundred years preceding the coming of Messiah), texts came to be used in worship (e.g., the Psalms) and teaching. As mentioned above, the exact collection of texts varied depending on the sect.

However, with the loss of their center in Jerusalem and of unified temple worship (after AD 70), preserving the Jewish faith required greater standardization. The Jews could no longer afford divisions if they were to survive as a people. Thus, they needed a collection of unproblematic texts to use in their now dispersed population and synagogue-only worship. They needed to eliminate the use within their communities of texts useful to those whom they considered heretics (e.g., Christians, Gnostics, and Hellenizers). Particularly, they did not want to use in their services texts that the Christians could use to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Prophets of the Old Testament. The canon, or list of accepted texts, that the Jews produced as their standard is significantly shorter than the LXX and came to be known as the Masoretic text.

What Is the Christian Old Testament?

This distinction between the Jewish version of the Old Testament (Hebrew Masoretic text) and the Christian version of the Old Testament (Greek LXX) would not have been a serious concern for the Church if it hadn’t been for the growing separation of the Latin-speaking Church in the Western Roman Empire from the Greek-speaking Church in the East. In the fifth century, St. Jerome produced what became the standard Latin version of the Old Testament. However, instead of basing his translation on the LXX, St. Jerome moved to Jerusalem, lived with a Jewish family to learn Hebrew, and translated the Old Testament based on an early version of the Masoretic text.

Jerome’s translation, together with a translation of the New Testament into Latin, came to be called the Vulgate and included most of the Deuterocanonical, or Apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, but separated them from the rest. It also preserved many of the Christological prophecies which later versions of the Masoretic text omit. But because it was based on a text tradition different from that of the LXX, significant differences between the Vulgate Old Testament and the LXX are evident.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate was the standard translation of the Old Testament used in the West, while the LXX remained the standard in the East. While the New Testament of the earliest versions of the Vulgate is very similar to the Greek New Testament used by the Eastern Churches, the Old Testaments differed somewhat. But this did not present a significant problem for the Church at that time.

The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the New Testament canon, and it accepted the twenty-seven–book canon that we have today, allowing only these books to be read in church under the name of “canonical writings.” The discussion of the limits of the New Testament canon continued for centuries, but by the early sixth century, nearly all Christians recognized only the twenty-seven books in our current New Testament as canonical. (To this day, the Nestorians recognize a twenty-two–book subset and the Ethiopians a superset of the New Testament.)

The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics. In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.

The Protestant Canon

Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books. The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has Paul quoting Isaiah as saying, “He who believes in him [Messiah] will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:33). The footnote in the New Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV refers the reader to Isaiah 28:16, which reads only, “One who trusts will not panic.”

Just as the Protestant acceptance of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament had little to do with theology, the Protestant omission of the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament has very little to do with theology, although in the past hundred years or so it has taken on theological significance among many Protestant groups.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself.

A Septuagint Revival

Currently there is no translation of the LXX into modern English. Thank God that the St. Athanasius Academy has undertaken the Old Testament Orthodox Study Bible project in order to provide a good translation of the LXX into contemporary English. However, this project will not be completed for a few more years. In the meantime, an excellent translation of many of the Deuterocanonical books is available in most editions of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. However, for the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament, it is based primarily on the Masoretic text. Sir Lancelot Brendon’s The Septuagint with Apocrypha can be used to supplement the NRSV, although its language is somewhat archaic. Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s translation of the LXX Psalter (and Biblical Canticles) is also available and highly recommended.

Many prayers in the Church are based on prayers found in the Deuterocanonical books. The stories (or full stories) of many saints and angels celebrated in the liturgical calendar of the Orthodox Church are found in these books. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Sirach, listed among the Deuterocanonical books, are storehouses of wisdom on a par with Proverbs. Edification and inspiration await those who take the time prayerfully to read these important books of the Church.


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; canon; evangelical; orthodox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2011 4:40:42 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rzman21

From the article:
“When the Church began, there were no New Testament books ...”

Of course there weren’t. In fact, when the Church began there were no Old Testament books either: “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.” (Genesis 4:26)


2 posted on 11/06/2011 5:07:12 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

What a terrific exegesis! Thank you!


3 posted on 11/06/2011 5:09:07 PM PST by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; Mr Rogers; HarleyD; boatbums; metmom; smvoice; CynicalBear; bibletruth

thanks for posting.

some seem to believe the Scriptures dropped out of the skies, so this will be very educational for them.


4 posted on 11/06/2011 5:30:38 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

The Lutheran confessions cite the deuterocanonicals to prove matters of doctrine.

That never made sense for me when I first discovered that fact. Luther rejected them, but Melancthon seemed to accept them.


5 posted on 11/06/2011 5:45:49 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

I’m expecting a slew of “new revelations” and “newly translated” texts in the next few years.


6 posted on 11/06/2011 6:05:14 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

1. The Orthodox Study Bible was competed a few years ago—I own a copy. So this article is old.

http://orthodoxstudybible.com/

2. Whether there was a Council of Jamnia is now controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

Nevertheless, the Jews rejected the Septugint around that time.

3. The author of this article, Daniel (not David) Lieuwen is a great friend of the Serbs.


7 posted on 11/06/2011 7:06:46 PM PST by Honorary Serb (Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

thanks.

The Orthodox have a longer and more serious memory for the past than Catholics, who often are poorly trained, or Protestants, who often read things third hand.

I wish the churches would unite again: We need the mysticism and long memory to counteract the “trendy” part of the church.


8 posted on 11/06/2011 8:03:31 PM PST by LadyDoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc

Greek Catholics such as myself share a lot in common with our Orthodox brethren particularly when it comes to liturgy and patristics.


9 posted on 11/06/2011 8:11:49 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

As one of my rabbis taught us in seminary, the Sadducees were very sad, you see...


10 posted on 11/06/2011 8:22:44 PM PST by Phinneous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
Of course there weren’t. In fact, when the Church began there were no Old Testament books either: “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.” (Genesis 4:26)

Gen 4:26 has absolutely NOTHING to do with a religious ecclesia. You might be interested to know that “began to call upon” is NOT quite what Christendom doctrine claims it to be. The Hebrew word Christendom translated as ‘began’ is “chalal” pronounced ‘khaw-lal’ and its meaning is “to profane”. The word “name” is ‘shem’ which also means authority, honor. Given the fact that Cain had just killed his brother and he then took 2 wives (1st case of polygamy)and also the fact that YHVH had been speaking with them all along, a proper interp of Gen 4:26 would be

“at this time began men to profane the honor & authority of YHVH”

Thus the reason the next 3 chapters of Genesis describe YHVH’s disappointment in creating man, the continued refusal of man to follow HIS ways and the great flood that destroyed the corruption that was abound. That verse is a prophetic message spoken by Yah'shua

Mt 24:37 “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

Luke 17:22 Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go after them or follow them. 24 For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day. 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

11 posted on 11/06/2011 10:04:49 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phinneous
I just got done reading a “Jesus the Pharisee” by Rabbi Harvey Falk. While I do not support this notion that YHVH only requires gentiles to follow the Noahide laws as there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for it, the book was a great help in understanding 1st century culture & idioms. This notion that Christendom teaches that the Scriptures were read in Greek in the synagogues and the Hebrew schools of Shammai & Hillel is about as far out in outer space as one could get.

2 other enlightening books are ‘Understanding the difficult words of Jesus’ & “New light on the difficult words of Jesus’ by David Bivin are also great sources for understanding the parables Yah’shua spoke. I found it quite interesting that all the parables I have cross referenced thus far were taken from Jewish rabbinic parable literature that Yah'shua had obviously studied and had memorized.

12 posted on 11/06/2011 10:26:52 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Honorary Serb

The Jewish version is that the original Septuagint was the Five Books of Moses only, and none of it survived. The term was then borrowed by Christians to intentionally confuse the history and lend credibility to their revisionism.

And it is mere fantasy that the Council of Jamnia ‘fixed the canon’. There was discussion about what role Aramaic rather than Hebrew could be used and still be called inspired. The canon was fixed after the First Exile. And that’s skipping the major difference between the Jewish view that the Five Books of Moses are primary, with the Christian view that later revelation is primary.

Jews see a natural continuation between the Tanakh and the writings of religious Jews that followed (the Mishna and others), while Christians believed Greek became God’s language.


13 posted on 11/06/2011 11:04:22 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kenavi; one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21; Mr Rogers; HarleyD; boatbums; metmom; smvoice; ...
From NewAdvent.org in reference to In fact, the early Christians charged that the Pharisees had deliberately truncated the canon to avoid messianic prophecy pointing toward Jesus Christ (see Justin Martyr, Trypho 71–73).

Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.

Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah

Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

Chapter 73. [The words] From the wood have been cut out of Psalm 96

Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'

Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.

NOTE: we should not judge our Jewish friends by Christian standards for editing the Septuagint. As the article points out the religious life of the Jewish people was around the temple mount and rituals, so divergences of texts were acceptable. But this changed after the destruction of Jerusalem
14 posted on 11/07/2011 3:11:19 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar; rzman21; Cronos
From the article: “When the Church began, there were no New Testament books ...”

Just a slight correction. Peter in 2 Peter said this about Paul's writings:

From Peter's writings we can glean; 1) Paul's writings were well circulated, 2) doctrine, though hard to understand, was established and agreed to, 3) other scripture must have been in existance and used in order for Paul's writings to be compared to it, and 4) Paul's writings must have been considered to the same level of standard as the Old Testament writings.

So while there were no "books" per se, there were the same scriptural writings that we now read. And we have it on the authority of Peter no less.

15 posted on 11/07/2011 3:37:42 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I had no idea that was in Trypho. Okay, another book to read.
16 posted on 11/07/2011 3:40:34 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; kenavi; one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21; Mr Rogers; HarleyD; boatbums; metmom; ...

“NOTE: we should not judge our Jewish friends by Christian standards for editing the Septuagint. “

I’d say the Jews showed far greater reverence for accurately keeping the scriptures than the Catholic Church, at least from the time of their captivity on. It is certainly true that unlearned Jews like the Apostles still were able to quote scripture freely and accurately, while Christians who were not priests often have had their access to scripture severely restricted or completely denied by the Catholic Church.

There was debate at the time of Jesus about the extent of the scripture, with many restricting it to the Torah - but Jesus made it clear he did not. However, a good case can be made that Jesus did NOT extend it to the Apocrypha, and that the Septuagint had quite a bit of extraneous stuff added in.

Also, remember that when the Council of Trent defined scripture as the Vulgate, there then arose a question as to what was the text of the Vulgate...and the first attempt to put a standardized Vulgate out was horrible. And when they listed the books of the Vulgate, they left a few out...


17 posted on 11/07/2011 3:54:25 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; kenavi; one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21; HarleyD; boatbums; metmom; smvoice

“Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books. ...

...Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself. “

Ummm....no. The Apocrypha, which included 3 small sections the Council of Trent did not list but which had been there, was included in the KJV. “Deuterocanonical books” is a term invented after the Council of Trent to describe the books in the Vulgate listed by Trent, although the list at Trent left a few out.

Second, most Protestants did NOT consider it scripture. (”most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense.”) They were considered as good reading, but NOT scripture - a view backed by Jerome and many other Catholic scholars prior to the Council of Trent.

Third, Jesus & the Apostles NEVER used the Apocryphal books for authority. Jude quotes a book for illustration, but that book isn’t in anyone’s list of the canon. And Paul quotes a Cretan prophet, without suggesting the prophet’s writings were scripture. There were many prophets who made many prophecies that were not included in scripture.

“It is written...” appears many times in the NT, but never with the Apocryphal books following.


18 posted on 11/07/2011 4:07:46 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

What does the Council of Trent have to do with the Eastern Orthodox?


19 posted on 11/07/2011 5:27:04 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

“What does the Council of Trent have to do with the Eastern Orthodox?”

I didn’t realize this thread was restricted to Eastern Orthodox.

However, if one is going to use the term “Deuterocanonical”, as the article did, then it ought to be remembered that it is a Roman Catholic term to describe what was done in the Council of Trent. It is not interchangeable with ‘Apocrypha’, since the Apocrypha shrank at Trent, and Deuterocanonical describes the shrunk result.


20 posted on 11/07/2011 5:42:50 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jjotto; Honorary Serb

“The Jewish version is that the original Septuagint was the Five Books of Moses only, and none of it survived.”

That is a novel idea. Since when was the Septuagint a translation of only the first 5 books of Moses?

“And that’s skipping the major difference between the Jewish view that the Five Books of Moses are primary, with the Christian view that later revelation is primary.”

Another odd idea. What makes you think Christians give the first 5 books lower status than what follows?

“Christians believed Greek became God’s language.”

Really? Another odd idea. I’ve never encountered it, but I’ve only been a Christian for 40 years...


21 posted on 11/07/2011 6:10:01 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; rzman21

neither did i. thanks to rzman for pointing it out


22 posted on 11/07/2011 6:10:37 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; kenavi; one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21; HarleyD; boatbums; metmom
Do read the article. It points out why exactly it was edited out

Also, there is the information from the letters by Justin Martyr

Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.

Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah

Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

Chapter 73. [The words] From the wood have been cut out of Psalm 96

Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'

Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.


23 posted on 11/07/2011 6:12:43 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin wrote:
Gen 4:26 has absolutely NOTHING to do with a religious ecclesia. You might be interested to know that “began to call upon” is NOT quite what Christendom doctrine claims it to be. The Hebrew word Christendom translated as ‘began’ is “chalal” pronounced ‘khaw-lal’ and its meaning is “to profane”. The word “name” is ‘shem’ which also means authority, honor. Given the fact that Cain had just killed his brother and he then took 2 wives (1st case of polygamy)and also the fact that YHVH had been speaking with them all along, a proper interp of Gen 4:26 would be “at this time began men to profane the honor & authority of YHVH”

So, “chalal” is translated twice in the same sentence, once by “began” and once by “to profane,” the first as a past tense and the second as an infinitive? And “liqr’o” is left untranslated? And “shem” is translated with two words with an “and” between them instead of the usual one like other words? That is quite the scholarly observation. I guess I never understood “proper interp” before. Thanks for the demonstration.


24 posted on 11/07/2011 6:21:20 AM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The Eastern Churches, including those in union with the Pope of Rome never use the term “deuterocanonical,” but simply canonical.

The Septuagint canon was never taken into question in the Christian East or debated the way it was in the West, particularly because the Greeks didn’t read Latin.

I’m sure the author of this piece used “deuterocanonical” because it is a common term that most people know.

Anytime a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox looks at the fathers, they look at the bigger picture of what the broader tradition was.


25 posted on 11/07/2011 6:37:47 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

It seems odd, although it may be true, that the Eastern Orthodox sided with Augustine on the canon, when they viewed him with distrust on many other matters.

I was also puzzled by this:

“Currently there is no translation of the LXX into modern English.”

I have several copies of the New English Bible that include the Apocrypha. And there is this: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

Is this an older article?


26 posted on 11/07/2011 6:49:10 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Do you reject the Virgin Birth? That’s a rhetorical question of course because Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah quotes from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew.

Melkite Catholics such as myself use the Septuagint as the norm for our faith the way the Latin Church follows the Vulgate.

The Septuagint was hallowed by the apostles who used it rather than the Hebrew to prove Christian doctrine.


27 posted on 11/07/2011 6:49:10 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Most of the Hellenistic Jews spoke and read Greek rather than Hebrew in the 1st century.

The modern Jewish texts are corruptions. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the older Hebrew was far closer to the Septuagint than the Massoretic texts used by Jews and Protestants.


28 posted on 11/07/2011 6:54:10 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

There is this explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.

On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others—a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As for the Virgin Birth - the Hebrew allows either translation - young maid, or virgin. Many prophecies involved a double time span, one immediate, and one long term. I think the prophecy MEANT both meanings.

It reads:

“10Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11”Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

In the near term, I think the correct translation is young maid, since the point was the destruction was coming soon. IN the long term, it applied to Jesus.


29 posted on 11/07/2011 6:55:55 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The Orthodox Study Bible’s OT is a direct translation of the Septuagint in the style of the New King James. It has all of the books save 4th Maccabees.


30 posted on 11/07/2011 7:02:10 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Try telling that to an Orthodox Jew. :)


31 posted on 11/07/2011 7:03:42 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession qoutes from two books of the Deuterocanonicals, but only in response to the Pontificia Refutatio. What doctrine do you think Lutherans require the Deuterocanonicals to prove?


32 posted on 11/07/2011 7:04:53 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

“The Septuagint was hallowed by the apostles who used it rather than the Hebrew to prove Christian doctrine.”

We are not arguing about a Greek translation, but about the canon status of the additional stuff found in the Septuagint. The Apostles would tend to use a Greek translation when talking to Greeks. It is also likely that they quoted from memory, rather than go to a place with scrolls to cross check the exact working used in a letter. The Jewish Christians would have normally used both Hebrew and Greek.

Wiki actually has a good article on the Septuagint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint


33 posted on 11/07/2011 7:05:09 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
So, “chalal” is translated twice

No, 'chalal' doesn't appear 2x. The word for 'began' is a different word and was interpreted as 'then'. 'Began' is 'az' (awz) and is actually encompassed in the word 'then' which is 'az'(awz)

אזH227 then / הוחלH2490 began / לקראH7121 men to call / בשׁםH8034 upon the name / יהוה׃H3068 of the LORD

5 words in Hebrew were translated into 11 English words. Anyone who wishes to interpret Scripture properly in order to really understand what YHVH is telling us needs to have at minimum, Hebrew/English & Greek/English Interlinear Bibles as well as study Hebrew idioms. Yah's language is multi-dimentional. Layers upon layers and the reason it was originally given in pictures.

Studying the Scriptures deeper, taking the words back to their origins, is what opened my eyes to much of the heresy of the religious doctrine I had been following blindly. I 1st tried going to my local pastor, but he told me that YHVH's Hebrew language was irrelevent while admitting that he had never even studied the Scriptures in their original Hebrew. Just like the libs treat our Constitution as a living breathing document, this pastor told me that the meaning of the words in the Bible change as man & times change and progress. This was my 'Red Flag' moment when YHVH opened my heart to His truth & His language.

If one wishes to truly understand the words of our Jewish Messiah, one must study the Scriptures he spoke in the language he spoke them in; which is Hebrew.

34 posted on 11/07/2011 7:15:13 AM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: patlin

The Septuagint predates your Massoretic texts by over 1000 years.


35 posted on 11/07/2011 7:17:12 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; jjotto

To preface this post, note that I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from Lutheranism in 2008, after a 9-year in-depth exposure to Orthodoxy in a Serbian-American community.

1. Judaism had several different streams just before and during Jesus’ earthly ministry. The ENTIRE Septuagint was translated and produced by Hellenistic Jews, NOT Christians. So there was NO “Christian revisionism”, even though post-Second Exile Jews do not accept the Septuagint.

2. Orthodox Christians read from the first five books of Moses in certain services (not the Sunday Divine Liturgy), some of which (such as in Holy Week) are very important services attended by most of us. We also commemorate as Saints many figures in the Torah, including Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph, etc. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod commemorates some of the m as well.

3. Christians believe that God speaks to us in ALL human languages—ever since the Day of Pentecost (also a Jewish feast) after Jesus’ Resurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost#New_Testament

In Alaska, Divine Liturgy is celebrated in several Native Alaskan tongues, as well as English, Slavonic, and Russian (among others).


36 posted on 11/07/2011 7:54:42 AM PST by Honorary Serb (Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin, two things, first, you appear to have been the victim of an unfaithful and unqualified pastor. Which seminary did he come out of and what synod did he belong to?

Second, don’t you think that there is some possibility that your understanding might be less than perfect?


37 posted on 11/07/2011 8:03:45 AM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove

I realize the wikipedia is a popular source for information, however much of it is biased towards those who post it. From "Understanding the difficult words of Jesus" by David Biven...

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, the leading proponents of the Aramaic theory have gradually begun to modify their views. Matthew Black, for instance, in the 3rd edition of his influential book, 'An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts' remarks:

The Qumran discoveries have also shed fresh light on the problem. M.Wilcox writes: "With regard to the matter of language, we ought to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has now placed at our disposal information of a highly interesting and relevant nature.... The nonbiblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest the fact that in New Testament times, and for some consideable time previously, Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.
If this is a correct estimate of the Qumran evidence, where Hebrew certainly vastly dominated over Aramaic, then it may be held to confirm the view identified with the name of Professor Segal that Hebrew was actually a spoken vernacular in Judaea in the time of Christ" (Black 1967:47)

Greek Theory: ...it remains an important fact that the poor Greek of the Synoptic Gospels id found basically only in literary works that are translations from Semitic originals, such as the Septuagint...many Gospel expressions are not just poor Greek, but actually meaningless Greek....example Mt 6:22-23 reads "the lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is good, your whole body is full of light; but if you eye is bad your whole body is full of darkness...". the expressions "good eye" and "Bad eye" are common Hebrew idioms for "generous" and "Miserly". Greek as no such idioms, and in Greek this statement of Jesus is meaningless, just as it is in English....Are we claiming that the Synoptic Gospels were not originally written on Greek? To this we must answer "yes" and "no". The Synoptic Gospels as we have them today were originally written in Greek; however the text from which they descended was originally translated from a Hebrew archetype...it is the undertext of our canonical Gospels that reveals the Hebrew origin... Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of Jesus...It is most unfortunate that our Bible colleges and seminaries focus their attention on Greek and Hellenistic theology, and fail, by and large, to equip their students with the proper tools that would allow them to do serious bible exegesis...The evidence for Aramaic or Greek origins of the Synoptic Gospels simply will not stand up under critical analysis. There is far more substantial evidence indicating a Hebrew origin of the Synoptic Gospels."

38 posted on 11/07/2011 8:26:10 AM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
Which seminary did he come out of and what synod did he belong to

and this matters why?

don’t you think that there is some possibility that your understanding might be less than perfect

No, because Yah’shua, our Jewish Messiah did not come to form a new church or religion as it was he, “The Word”, that formed everything in the beginning, including man, sealed the covenant with Abraham by going through the pieces while Abraham slept, lead the people out of Egypt & provided the manna from heaven. It was “The Word” that spoke the details of the covenants(commandments) that are written in the Torah that prophesied he would come in the flesh and thus the reason he said “keep MY commandments”. The commandments are actually his.(John 1:1)

Thus the reason the house of Judah doesn't accept the Christian Messiah. According to Christendom, the Messiah came to break the Abrahamic covenant and side with pagan worshipers. If memory recalls correctly, our Elohyim declared that He changes not.(Mal 3:6) Rather, it is man that changes by refusing to keep His Torah as He gave it.

39 posted on 11/07/2011 8:50:09 AM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

ph


40 posted on 11/07/2011 9:05:56 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; HarleyD; Mr Rogers

what our non-catholic FRiends don’t seem to understand is the Catholic Church has been contending with unbelievers for 2,000 years, whether we are talking about jews, arians, gnostics, muslims, etc etc. the fact that 16th century sects arose was just more error to contend with.


41 posted on 11/07/2011 4:51:56 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin wrote:
“According to Christendom, the Messiah came to break the Abrahamic covenant and side with pagan worshipers. “

That, of course, is completely and categorically untrue. Does it bother you to mischaracterize and misrepresent others? Or is that permitted under your interpretation of Mosaic law?


42 posted on 11/07/2011 5:57:10 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; Cronos; Mr Rogers
Do you include the Orthodox in that who left around 1,000 AD? After all, both churches excommunicated each other for a while there.

So are you prepare to tell us the Eastern Orthodox doctrine is in error? Be careful how you answer. The Catholic Church is more about politics these days than theology. Why, you might even find the pope kissing the Koran and saying we all worship the same God of Abraham. Certainly the Catholics here wouldn't disagree with that would they?

43 posted on 11/07/2011 6:11:19 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
The Mosaic Law(Torah) is attached to the Abrahamic Covenant. They are not and never have been separate from each other. So when Christendom cast off the Mosaic saying it was nailed to the cross, they also cast off the Abrahamic Covenant that the Mosaic law was put in place to separate & protect YHVH’s children from the children of the world. One can not be in covenant if one doesn't accept the terms of the covenant which is Torah, "The WORD" made flesh. The Word that was in the beginning, was with YHVH & was YHVH. "The Word" that has never changed, nor will ever change. (Mt 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened.)

Is this statement harsh, yes. Is this statement true, absolutely & unequivocally yes.

44 posted on 11/07/2011 7:01:36 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin wrote:
“Is this statement harsh, yes. Is this statement true, absolutely & unequivocally yes.”

patlin has no idea of what patlin is talking about.
Is this statement harsh, yes.

patlin does not understand the most basic things about Christianity or Christian doctrine and has therefore no veracity whatever when it comes to commenting about or critiquing Christendom.
Is this statement true, absolutely & unequivocally yes.

That about does it. I think I’m done with this ... and you.


45 posted on 11/07/2011 7:16:41 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I’d say you are setting up a nice little strawman by charging that the Catholic Church is more about politics than theology these days.

I think a similar charge could be levied against conservative Evangelicals who mix American nationalism with their theology.

The Catholic Church has done a considerable amount to reach out to the Orthodox.

The excommunications between the Church of Rome and Church of Constantinople were lifted in 1965, but the schism hasn’t ended.

My own Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, maintained a double communion with Rome and Constantinople throughout the 17th century until political pressure led to the fragmentation of Church of Antioch into Catholic and Orthodox factions.

My patriarch describes us as Orthodox in communion with Rome because our theology and liturgical patrimony is Orthodox, but we in union with the Pope of Rome.

There are a lot of Catholics who were scandalized by Pope John Paul II’s excessive diplomacy.


46 posted on 11/07/2011 7:18:33 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

the Orthodox hold the Catholic Faith and have valid sacraments since their bishops have been validly ordained.


47 posted on 11/07/2011 7:32:33 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
I spent 49 yrs of my life in Christendom, thus I am qualified to speak of the false aspects of its doctrine.

Ex 12:49 “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

1 John 2:4 Anyone who says, “I know him,” but isn't obeying his commands is a liar - the truth is not in him. 5 But if someone keeps doing what he says, then truly love for God has been brought to its goal in him. This is how we are sure that we are united with him. 6 A person who claims to be continuing in union with him ought to conduct his life the way he did. 7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command. On the contrary, it is an old command, which you have had from the beginning

Deut 4:40 “Therefore, you are to keep his laws and mitzvot which I am giving you today, so that it will go well with you and with your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days in the land ADONAI your God is giving you forever.”

Maybe you can tell me what part of one law forever, for everyone, Christendom does not understand?

48 posted on 11/07/2011 8:05:54 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin, I don’t care whether you spent 149 years of your life in Christendom, it does not mean you understand much of anything much less that you are qualified to speak with any kind of authority or veracity. Saying such things as, “According to Christendom, the Messiah came to break the Abrahamic covenant and side with pagan worshipers,” tells me that you are either deliberately saying what you know to be untrue in order to provoke or that you really do not understand Christianity. I choose to err on the side of charity and believe that you are simply lacking in understanding.

So, let me ask you this simple question: What is the “proper” translation of Genesis 6:5? And does this verse include you in its evaluation of mankind?


49 posted on 11/07/2011 9:35:14 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
I do not speak my words, I put forth the words of YHVH and I let Him speak for Himself. I also have made no evaluation of any person, only that of religious doctrine per freeper rules regarding religious threads.

The doctrine you follow, which is the doctrine I left, says that the Mosaic laws are for Jews only and since according to YHVH, the Mosaic laws are attached to the Abrahamic covenant and are never to be separated, then if a doctrine casts off the Mosaic laws, it has cast off the Abrahamic covenant because it never accepted it to begin with. John 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me." How does one reconcile religious doctrine that dismisses the terms of the covenant?

John 14 - the “if you love me” chapter says doctrine that loves YHVH does not cast off His doctrine for that of man.

50 posted on 11/07/2011 10:58:40 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson