Why do Protestants use The Pharisees Old Testament

[Cepha]

The Pharisees.

They condenmed, beat, spat upon, cursed and rejected Jesus Christ.

So how can persons who call themselves Christians use their Old Testament Canon as the basis of their bibles?

How could they place their faith in the Canon of the religious leaders who killed Jesus?

And how can they use an Old Testament that didn't exist while Jesus was alive (from which Jesus could'nt have quoted from since it didn't exist)?

The Pharisees/Protestant Canon was created in 90 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia (over 1/2 a century "after" Jesus died...60 years later).


The Pharisees rejected Scriptures that would go on to be used in the New Testament.

[Cepha]

Jesus used The Septugaint.

This is the original Jewish Canon that existed since 300 years "before" Jesus was even born.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus quoted.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus read from and taught from.

This is The Old Testament that Christianity has always used.

So, why use any other Old Testament version other than the one that Jesus Himself used?

Who are we supposed to follow as Christians?

Jesus?

Or The Pharisees?

[redsoxfan]

Cause that's how they roll....

[Cepha]

Apr 23, 2008 12:28:01 GMT -5 redsoxfan said:

Cause that's how they roll....

LMBO!

[alfie]

Apr 10, 2008 13:46:32 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The Pharisees.

They condenmed, beat, spat upon, cursed and rejected Jesus Christ.

So how can persons who call themselves Christians use their Old Testament Canon as the basis of their bibles?

How could they place their faith in the Canon of the religious leaders who killed Jesus?

And how can they use an Old Testament that didn't exist while Jesus was alive (from which Jesus could'nt have quoted from since it didn't exist)?

The Pharisees/Protestant Canon was created in 90 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia (over 1/2 a century "after" Jesus died...60 years later).


The Pharisees rejected Scriptures that would go on to be used in the New Testament.

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus' day the Jewish people still held to Ezra's collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called 'the Scriptures,' that is "the writings."

[Cepha]

Apr 24, 2008 16:48:15 GMT -5 alfie said:

Apr 10, 2008 13:46:32 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The Pharisees.

They condenmed, beat, spat upon, cursed and rejected Jesus Christ.

So how can persons who call themselves Christians use their Old Testament Canon as the basis of their bibles?

How could they place their faith in the Canon of the religious leaders who killed Jesus?

And how can they use an Old Testament that didn't exist while Jesus was alive (from which Jesus could'nt have quoted from since it didn't exist)?

The Pharisees/Protestant Canon was created in 90 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia (over 1/2 a century "after" Jesus died...60 years later).


The Pharisees rejected Scriptures that would go on to be used in the New Testament.

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus' day the Jewish people still held to Ezra's collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called 'the Scriptures,' that is "the writings."

Why do The Protestants accept only The Pharisees Canon and reject The Christian Canon?

[alfie]

Apr 10, 2008 13:46:32 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The Pharisees.

They condenmed, beat, spat upon, cursed and rejected Jesus Christ.

So how can persons who call themselves Christians use their Old Testament Canon as the basis of their bibles?

How could they place their faith in the Canon of the religious leaders who killed Jesus?

And how can they use an Old Testament that didn't exist while Jesus was alive (from which Jesus could'nt have quoted from since it didn't exist)?

The Pharisees/Protestant Canon was created in 90 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia (over 1/2 a century "after" Jesus died...60 years later).


The Pharisees rejected Scriptures that would go on to be used in the New Testament.

1. In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.

2. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.

3. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon

[alfie]

Apr 24, 2008 21:40:22 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Apr 24, 2008 16:48:15 GMT -5 alfie said:

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus' day the Jewish people still held to Ezra's collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called 'the Scriptures,' that is "the writings."

Why do The Protestants accept only The Pharisees Canon and reject The Christian Canon?

Was Jerome also a Pharisee since he is the one who was commisioned by pope Gregory to write the Vulgate? He accepted the Palistinian canon as valid not the Alexandrian with the Deutrocanical books.

[alfie]

Apr 10, 2008 13:50:00 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Jesus used The Septugaint.

This is the original Jewish Canon that existed since 300 years "before" Jesus was even born.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus quoted.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus read from and taught from.

This is The Old Testament that Christianity has always used.

So, why use any other Old Testament version other than the one that Jesus Himself used?

Who are we supposed to follow as Christians?

Jesus?

Or The Pharisees?

Just because Jesus quoted from the Deutrocanicals doesn't mean they were accepted by the Jews as inspired scripture.

[redsoxfan]

Yet it does mean that they were widely known and should at the very least be read by Christians today. For Jesus to actually quote them it would appear that they had to be influential in everyday society. Why else would he quote them? Let's face it he wasn't the one to quote obscure sources to make himself seem intelligent. That was more of a pharisee trait.
At the very most they are canonical.

[Cepha]

alfie
1. In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.

I guess you disagree with history then right? Because according to history, "that's" when the Canon was decided and they rejected The New Testament along with the Septuagint that Jesus used.

But I don't expect you to believe that since you dont' believe that The Catholic Church has ever proven it even existed anyway.

2. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.

It was actually the Jewish Leadership. Their number doesn't matter.

But hey, I got one for you...can you prove that the Protestant Canon that is identical to the Pharisees Canon existed before that council?

That would go a long way in supporting your argument.

Just like producing a 66 book bible "before" The 16th Century would to prove the existance of such a book.

3. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon

Yet despite all of that, they actually decided their canon at that council despite what you say they initially gathered for.

Again, can you produce a canon of Jewish scripture before Jamnia that "didnt" have the books that Christians have been using for 2,000 years?

[Cepha]

Apr 27, 2008 9:54:05 GMT -5 alfie said:

Apr 24, 2008 21:40:22 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Why do The Protestants accept only The Pharisees Canon and reject The Christian Canon?

Was Jerome also a Pharisee since he is the one who was commisioned by pope Gregory to write the Vulgate? He accepted the Palistinian canon as valid not the Alexandrian with the Deutrocanical books.

I love how you guys run to a Catholic to try to disprove The Church...here's the thing...who did the commissioning? Jerome? Or The Church?

By your very question you infer that it was The Church that had the authority to decide what was what.

Jerome was a translator, not a canon decider.

He tranlated the Hebrew version of the Bible, but the canon would be decided a good decade and a half later by The Church.

Now, if you want to insist that any version before The Bible was canonized is a true bible, then why not include all of the hundreds of Gospels that existed before The Holy Bible did?

Why just stop at Jerome? What about the other biblical collections that included less books than Jerome's?

What about Clement's translations?

And if Jerome is right about The Canon, then do you believe that God gave a Catholic the power to reveal His Word? What would that say about the rest of Jerome's beliefs then?

"That is to say, he has set in the forefront of his book John, an undoubted Catholic and saint, by his means to introduce to the church the heretics mentioned farther on. But who can adequately characterize the rashness or madness which has led him to ascribe a book of the Pythagorean philosopher Xystus, a heathen who knew nothing of Christ, to Sixtus a martyr and bishop of the Roman church?"
Letter to Caetesiphon 415 A.D.

"That you fight Christ's battles against the enemies of the Catholic Faith your own letters have informed me as well as the reports of many persons, but I am told that you find the winds contrary and that those who ought to have been the world's champions have backed the cause of perdition to each other's ruin."
Letter to Riparius, 417 A.D.

"The truth is that all we who hold the Catholic faith, wish and long that, while the heresy is condemned, the men may be reformed. At all events, if they will continue in error, the blame does not attach to us who have written, but to them, since they have preferred a lie to the truth."
Against the Pelagians, 417 A.D., book I-2

"He slays a heretic who allows him to be a heretic. But when we rebuke him we give him life; you may die to your heresy, and live to the Catholic faith."
Against the Pelagians, 417 A.D., book III-17

"Jude, the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles, and because in ithe quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch it is rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures."
De viris Illustribus 4, 400 A.D.

"He who is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!"
Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, 374 A.D., 16,2 J1346a

"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation."
Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, 376 A.D. 3,10 J1371a

"Christ Himself is a virgin; and His mother is also a virgin; yea, though she is His mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors, and in His sepulchre--a new one hewn out of the hardest rock--no man is laid either before Him or after Him. Mary is "a garden enclosed ... a fountain sealed," and from that fountain flows, according to Joel, the river which waters the torrent bed either" of cords or of thorns; the cords being those of the sins by which we were beforetime bound, the thorns those which choked the seed the goodman of the house had sown. She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her "the Sun of Righteousness," our "high priest after the order of Melchizedek," goes in and out. Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh," thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes."
Letter of Jerome to Pammachius, 393 A.D., 21

"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard the various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed."
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, 398 A.D. 3,16,9 J1386

[Cepha]

Apr 27, 2008 9:57:01 GMT -5 alfie said:

Apr 10, 2008 13:50:00 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Jesus used The Septugaint.

This is the original Jewish Canon that existed since 300 years "before" Jesus was even born.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus quoted.

It was The Old Testament that Jesus read from and taught from.

This is The Old Testament that Christianity has always used.

So, why use any other Old Testament version other than the one that Jesus Himself used?

Who are we supposed to follow as Christians?

Jesus?

Or The Pharisees?

Just because Jesus quoted from the Deutrocanicals doesn't mean they were accepted by the Jews as inspired scripture.

Whoever said that The Pharisees had the right to decide what was to be considered Canonical for Christians?

Remember, it was their rejection and condemnation of Christ that caused His suffering.

They are certainly the last ones to decide what we should beleive.

On top of all of that, they persecuted us like dogs...and you place your trust in "them" for your beliefs?

[Cepha]

Apr 27, 2008 18:04:32 GMT -5 redsoxfan said:

Yet it does mean that they were widely known and should at the very least be read by Christians today. For Jesus to actually quote them it would appear that they had to be influential in everyday society. Why else would he quote them? Let's face it he wasn't the one to quote obscure sources to make himself seem intelligent. That was more of a pharisee trait.
At the very most they are canonical.

Simply put, the current Protestant version didn't exist in Jesus' time. He could'nt have quoted from that version.

However, the Septuagint "did" exist in Jesus' time and even 300 years before Jesus. It was the only version He could quote from as it was that version from which the scriptures were taught.

On top of all of that, The Pharisees gathered to create their own canon for their own religious movement (Judaism) and they had to remove the 7 books (remember, 7 is the number of God...coincidence?) to discredit Christianity.

Just like their followers (the Protestants) would do 1,500 years later when they repeated this act to try to discredit The Church when they formed their own religion.

[Cepha]

[quote author=alfie
Was Jerome also a Pharisee since he is the one who was commisioned by pope Gregory to write the Vulgate? He accepted the Palistinian canon as valid not the Alexandrian with the Deutrocanical books.[/quote]

Quick correction, he wasn't commissioned to decide the canon, but to translate the Tanakh.

The canon was decided "after".

Many versions were translated before the canon was decided.

The Vulgate was just the first collection of books (literally "bible", small b) to include both Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but, it wasn't decided to be canon.

There were other books before his work that contained both Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but they weren't canonized either, nor were they comprised by The Church.

I love that your discussing history now...you just admitted that The Catholic Church canonized The Holy Bible!

[jhardin]

Apr 24, 2008 21:40:22 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Apr 24, 2008 16:48:15 GMT -5 alfie said:

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus' day the Jewish people still held to Ezra's collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called 'the Scriptures,' that is "the writings."

Why do The Protestants accept only The Pharisees Canon and reject The Christian Canon?

The Pharisee's Canon was the Septuagint... it was compiled and translated about 200 AD. The Old Testament that Jesus would have studied would have been the Targum which was the Aramaic version of the Old Testament and it did NOT include the Apocryphal books.

The other version that Jesus would have studied and learned as a Child was the Hebrew Old Testament whihc also did not contain the Apocryphal books.

Now... if it could be proven that Jesus actually quoted from one of the Apocryphal books... 1: It doesn't prove that those books are actually intended to be Canonical by God. And 2: It could be that Jesus was quoting from that book as a historical reference, but again.. it doesn't prove that those books were intended to be Canonical by God.

Now... prove to me that Jesus quoted from one of those books in such a way to insinuate that they were accepted by Him to be included in Old Testament Canon and then we can talk.

[Cepha]

jhardin

The Pharisee's Canon was the Septuagint...it was compiled and translated about 200 AD.

Cite your source please?

Here's mine:

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).

The Council of Jamnia?
Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The "Council of Jamnia" (also called "Jabneh" or "Javneh") is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, "council" consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees' vision of "Jewry" was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that "Nazarenes" (i.e., "Christians", who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel's Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila -- but one without the ancient Septuagint's language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book "had" to have been written in Hebrew to be "Biblical" wasn't the issue.

Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead -- the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I've actually read at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the Council of Jamnia's decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).

www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

The Old Testament that Jesus would have studied would have been the Targum which was the Aramaic version of the Old Testament and it did NOT include the Apocryphal books.

Why would that (and not The Septuagint that He actually quoted from exclusively from) be the version He would use...then "not" quote from it?

The other version that Jesus would have studied and learned as a Child was the Hebrew Old Testament whihc also did not contain the Apocryphal books.

Again, why would Jesus have used this book?

Now... if it could be proven that Jesus actually quoted from one of the Apocryphal books... 1: It doesn't prove that those books are actually intended to be Canonical by God. And 2: It could be that Jesus was quoting from that book as a historical reference, but again.. it doesn't prove that those books were intended to be Canonical by God.

Not only did He quote from The Deuterocanonicals, but He also quoted from The Canon that they came from...The Septugaint:

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.

John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"

John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.

Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.

Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.

Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."

Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.

Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."

Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.

Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.

Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."

Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."

Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).

Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.

Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.

Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."

Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."

Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."

Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."

Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."

Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.

Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.

Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.

Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."

Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."

Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.

Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.

Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.

Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.

Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."

1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.

1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"

2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).

2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.

Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.

Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.

Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."

2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."

Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."

Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."

Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."

Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."

Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!

Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.

Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."

Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."

Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.

Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."

Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.

Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.

Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.

James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.

1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.

1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."

1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.

1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."

1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."

1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.

Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.




Of course, you can compare the scriptures yourself just to be sure.

Now... prove to me that Jesus quoted from one of those books in such a way to insinuate that they were accepted by Him to be included in Old Testament Canon and then we can talk.

Look at that! I was already ahead of you!

Why don't we do a scripture study and take each verse one by one comparing them to the Protestant/Pharisee Canon and The Septuagint Canon!

[Cepha]

Is it just me?

Or are Protestants "not" answering the Poll question?

;D

[Cepha]

In case anybody missed it...

7=The Number of God
3=The Holy Trinity

Septuagint=70+ Authors

Catholic Bible=73 Books






666=Evil

Protestant Bible=66(6?) books?

[jhardin]

In case anybody missed it...

7=The Number of God
3=The Holy Trinity

Septuagint=70+ Authors

Catholic Bible=73 Books

That's a little esoteric... Here, I've got a better illustration for you.

Lev 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
Lev 24:6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.

This is the shewbread on the table in the temple which was to illustrate the Word of God (everything in the Temple was an illustration of something spiritual).

Notice the cakes were set in two rows of 6 cakes. Since it was a symbol of the Word of God.. it seems ironic that there are 66 books in the REAL Christian canon of scripture.





666=Evil

Protestant Bible=66(6?) books?

[/quote]