|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 28, 2008 18:08:41 GMT -5
Cepha----------------- the jews at Alexandria were Pharisees too,Bro blindness was put upon them had Christ went to them then he would have been crucified in Egypt as surely as he was in Palestine.Regardless of which OT the people had the event was set in stone,the people would still reject Him so your emphasis on a Pharisee text is kind of moot. And to be frank,with the exception of Paul there is no evidence the others had the LXX as they were simple men who had lived their lives in and around Galilee and would have been much more likely to have grown up with Aramaic Targums --- I am not knocking the LXX but your insistence that John or Peter were walking around quoting Greek scripture from a book that wasn't popular in the area the grew up in is a stretch of immense proportions. Much love and respect Bro-----------------------knuckle Heya Knucks, I agree with what happened has happened, but I would not say it would be a mute point. A lot of misunderstandings about Catholicism would be cleared up if the Deuterocannicals were considered to be cannon by the protestants. I'm talking about a major boost to eccumenical relations. Ahhh.... Ok I just reread you're statement about the pharisees. The key there is all about timing. This has nothing to do with how they acted during Jesus' lifetime but rather how they responded to Christianity after Christ's lifetime. About St. Paul...if he uses it what else do you honestly need to see? He was a major influence on the new testament and it's recording. Take care~RSF77 |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2008 19:09:12 GMT -5
Cepha----------------- the jews at Alexandria were Pharisees too,Bro blindness was put upon them had Christ went to them then he would have been crucified in Egypt as surely as he was in Palestine.Regardless of which OT the people had the event was set in stone,the people would still reject Him so your emphasis on a Pharisee text is kind of moot. And to be frank,with the exception of Paul there is no evidence the others had the LXX as they were simple men who had lived their lives in and around Galilee and would have been much more likely to have grown up with Aramaic Targums --- I am not knocking the LXX but your insistence that John or Peter were walking around quoting Greek scripture from a book that wasn't popular in the area the grew up in is a stretch of immense proportions. Much love and respect Bro-----------------------knuckle Heya Knucks, I agree with what happened has happened, but I would not say it would be a mute point. A lot of misunderstandings about Catholicism would be cleared up if the Deuterocannicals were considered to be cannon by the protestants. I'm talking about a major boost to eccumenical relations. Ahhh.... Ok I just reread you're statement about the pharisees. The key there is all about timing. This has nothing to do with how they acted during Jesus' lifetime but rather how they responded to Christianity after Christ's lifetime. About St. Paul...if he uses it what else do you honestly need to see? He was a major influence on the new testament and it's recording. Take care~RSF77 The thing is, they don't consider it inspired by God, yet include it in their bibles. If they are not The Word of God, why include them in their books? They were in the first KJV, then they were taken out a hundred years "after" the first KJV, then put back, then taken out, then put back in again. Imagine that...if they accepted all of the books of The Holy Bible along with the other 83% of Christianity. Then, there would be so much erased between us. Step #1 in coming home.  |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 20:21:32 GMT -5
They should be in our bible for the same reason maps should be there--so we can see where they came from.As a historical piece,Maccabees is very important as is 1 Esdras,Baruch gives us an insight into the Jews in exile Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are on par with Psalms and Proverbs and I am sure that is why they were popular ---As for Judith or Susanna or Bel and the dragon they are a good read much as Ruth is.
Tobit is another matter and why it would be in any bible is beyond me and I would like to see a scriptural explanation of it.
much love-------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2008 20:45:45 GMT -5
They should be in our bible for the same reason maps should be there--so we can see where they came from.As a historical piece,Maccabees is very important as is 1 Esdras,Baruch gives us an insight into the Jews in exile Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are on par with Psalms and Proverbs and I am sure that is why they were popular ---As for Judith or Susanna or Bel and the dragon they are a good read much as Ruth is. Tobit is another matter and why it would be in any bible is beyond me and I would like to see a scriptural explanation of it. much love-------------knuckle And that's exactly why a "canon" had to be established. Where does it stop? Why not The Gospel of Thomas? Of Peter? Of Mary Magdelane? There are some Christians who would outrightly disagree with you and very violently so. Again, this is why Jesus left an authority of men devoted to one thing...focusing and dedicating their lives to His work. Historical pieces? Why just those books that "just happened" to be in The Septuagint as well? What a coincidence, no? What about all the other historical works like The Book of Enoch that Jesus quoted from but was deemed "not" to be the inspired word of God? The only thing that should be in The Holy Bible are those books that He chose to be there as revealed to The Church. Nothing else. References? Yes (index, notes, maps, etc...), but no works other than His works. |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 22:19:37 GMT -5
what of Tobit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 4:20:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 29, 2008 4:37:09 GMT -5
Come on Cepha,Why did the CC keep it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 15:24:04 GMT -5
Come on Cepha,Why did the CC keep it? Oh, the same reasons it canonized all the other books of The Holy Bible...Christianity (at least, the majority of it) always used The Septuagint. It was in The Septuagint. So, it was in The Canon along with the others. By the way, Tobit I believe is the only book that mentions The Archangel Raphael by name. It's a great story. Saint Polycarp (Saint John The Apostle's Disciple) quoted Tobit in his letter to The Phillipians Chapter 10: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He quotes Tobit in ch. 10 of his letter, which I will reproduce in its entirety. It is only a paragraph long. "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good , defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” [Tobit 4:10, 12:9] Be all of you subject one to another, having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles, that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But owe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct." “Alms delivers from death” is found in two places in Tobit, which is why two references are given. It is not two separate quotations. Polycarp (a student of one of The 12 Apostles that walked with Jesus Christ and that were commissioned to teach in His name)quotes The Septuagint. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 29, 2008 15:28:48 GMT -5
They kept it in because Tobit Rocks!!! =P
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 15:31:33 GMT -5
They kept it in because Tobit Rocks!!! =P  Yeah...I guess that'll do too! And, because it was The Church built upon " Rock"! ;D |
|
