The book of Esther is never quoted in the New Testament, nor alluded to, therefore Esther is an apocryphal work of fiction?

[NathanH83]

Esther ought to be ripped out of the Bible and thrown into the trash.

 

[tango]

Does something have to be referenced in the NT to be true?

 

[psalms 91]

Interesting and what do you suggest is done with Purim?

 

[Josiah]

Esther ought to be ripped out of the Bible and thrown into the trash.

I'm not a bit surprised by your claim.



.

 

[kiwimac]

Ah, more anti-catholic hooey. Of course neither Ruth nor Job are quoted in the NT so they should go too?

 

[JRT]

Ah, more anti-catholic hooey. Of course neither Ruth nor Job are quoted in the NT so they should go too?

Interesting that you should mention Ruth and Job because along with Jonah they are "truth books" rather than "true books". That is to say that they are extended parables attempting to teach an important moral message.

 

[Mikie]

Ever read esther as completion of Ezekiel 38 39.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Tell us how you really feel
Instructions for wearing the Tallit are also not referenced. Shall we throw out the book of Numbers?

 

[atpollard]

Tell us how you really feel
Instructions for wearing the Tallit are also not referenced. Shall we throw out the book of Numbers?

He doesn’t want you to throw away either Numbers or Esther. He really wants you to accept Maccabees as Holy Scripture.

So the real question is ... “What is found in the Apocrypha that is not found elsewhere in Scripture that makes it so important that we accept these historically Christian non-scriptural books as the Word of God?”

 

[Andrew]

He doesn’t want you to throw away either Numbers or Esther. He really wants you to accept Maccabees as Holy Scripture.

So the real question is ... “What is found in the Apocrypha that is not found elsewhere in Scripture that makes it so important that we accept these historically Christian non-scriptural books as the Word of God?”

Jews read Maccabees every Hanukkah because it's such an awesome history book, Jesus liked this history book so much so that he celebrated the apparent God given miracle in it.. He even relates himself to the "light" when the Jews approached him during this celebration.
Excellent history book!!

 

[Lamb]

Jews read Maccabees every Hanukkah because it's such an awesome history book, Jesus liked this history book so much so that he celebrated the apparent God given miracle in it.. He even relates himself to the "light" when the Jews approached him during this celebration.
Excellent history book!!

Jesus celebrates God given miracles not because it was written in a book. He's God you know.

 

[Andrew]

Jesus celebrates God given miracles not because it was written in a book. He's God you know. [emoji849]

Yes but the only miracles we know of God are from the bible...
I was recently speaking to a Jewish friend who told me that they regard the Torah and the Talmud over the prophets, wisdom books etc (the Tanakh outside the Torah)..
So when Jerome went to Bethlehem to study under the Rabbis there it was forbidden of them to share the Talmud with them (I'm sure Jerome would have refused it even if they had), the point is that Jews today hold a festival to mourn their Holy books being given to the gentiles through the greek translations, Jerome wouldn't dare to leave out the prophets and the wisdom books and "other writings", he hardly got away with re labeling the missing books in the post messianic Jewish canon as "Sacrad/obscure" writings..
Maccabees inspired a Holy day which Jesus celebrated, Maccabees was written during the 2nd Temple era where it was custom to buy animals for sacrifices from the Temple priest for sin atonements.. The reason Judas Maccabee took up offerings for the fallen soldiers was because he believed in a prophet who would raise the dead and so he commemorated them by offering sin atonements to cover them in hopes of a better resurrection when the Lord comes... While the book nor Maccabee himself ever implies that this was going to be accepted, the point was that it was to commemorate his men.. Pointing to the Messiah and the Resurrection but during the times where sin was only atoned for through Temple sacrifice.. Now the RCC had to excuse to follow the manner of purchasing atonement for sins of the dead, Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice, plus there is no Temple, Martin Luther was right for exposing these heretical dogmas.. Yet he was still a Catholic and likewise pointing to Maccabees as the source of "indulgence", when according to Maccabees it was not the case at all..
Lutherans will say that Luther was not a perfect man, he has said some naughty things before, like it or not, but he wrote his doubts on the book of James, Hebrews and Revelation because of Works.. His followers however use proper exegesis today and under stand what James meant, but had Maccabees not been rejected by post 2nd Temple destruction nom believing Jews, protestants IMO could use the proper exegesis in Maccabees to understand that we are no longer under Law and Temple sacrifices thus regardless of Maccabees "hopes" it is impossible to even suggest that atonements today can be purchased, only by the blood of Christ (not of animal sacrifice) can sins be atoned for.
Calling certain books "good to read but uninspired" has resulted in different church canons and for protestants an attitude of non interest, even to the point of debating readers and discouraging them to quote or mention them in the church.. Josiah says that churches may use current media or stories in their sermons, have you ever hears your preacher use examples from Sirach or Judith, bel and the dragon etc?
If not then why not? The disciples of the apostles did, why is it discouraged today?

 

[Lamb]

Yes but the only miracles we know of God are from the bible...
I was recently speaking to a Jewish friend who told me that they regard the Torah and the Talmud over the prophets, wisdom books etc (the Tanakh outside the Torah)..
So when Jerome went to Bethlehem to study under the Rabbis there it was forbidden of them to share the Talmud with them (I'm sure Jerome would have refused it even if they had), the point is that Jews today hold a festival to mourn their Holy books being given to the gentiles through the greek translations, Jerome wouldn't dare to leave out the prophets and the wisdom books and "other writings", he hardly got away with re labeling the missing books in the post messianic Jewish canon as "Sacrad/obscure" writings..
Maccabees inspired a Holy day which Jesus celebrated, Maccabees was written during the 2nd Temple era where it was custom to buy animals for sacrifices from the Temple priest for sin atonements.. The reason Judas Maccabee took up offerings for the fallen soldiers was because he believed in a prophet who would raise the dead and so he commemorated them by offering sin atonements to cover them in hopes of a better resurrection when the Lord comes... While the book nor Maccabee himself ever implies that this was going to be accepted, the point was that it was to commemorate his men.. Pointing to the Messiah and the Resurrection but during the times where sin was only atoned for through Temple sacrifice.. Now the RCC had to excuse to follow the manner of purchasing atonement for sins of the dead, Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice, plus there is no Temple, Martin Luther was right for exposing these heretical dogmas.. Yet he was still a Catholic and likewise pointing to Maccabees as the source of "indulgence", when according to Maccabees it was not the case at all..
Lutherans will say that Luther was not a perfect man, he has said some naughty things before, like it or not, but he wrote his doubts on the book of James, Hebrews and Revelation because of Works.. His followers however use proper exegesis today and under stand what James meant, but had Maccabees not been rejected by post 2nd Temple destruction nom believing Jews, protestants IMO could use the proper exegesis in Maccabees to understand that we are no longer under Law and Temple sacrifices thus regardless of Maccabees "hopes" it is impossible to even suggest that atonements today can be purchased, only by the blood of Christ (not of animal sacrifice) can sins be atoned for.
Calling certain books "good to read but uninspired" has resulted in different church canons and for protestants an attitude of non interest, even to the point of debating readers and discouraging them to quote or mention them in the church.. Josiah says that churches may use current media or stories in their sermons, have you ever hears your preacher use examples from Sirach or Judith, bel and the dragon etc?
If not then why not? The disciples of the apostles did, why is it discouraged today?

Not everyone considers the books you keep mentioning as canon because it's been proven that they weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit as being actual "Word of God". Just because something might be mentioned in one of the books that showed it was historically accurate does not mean that it's God's Word.

 

[Josiah]

Jews read Maccabees every Hanukkah because it's such an awesome history book

1, 2, 3 or 4 Maccabees is not the book of Esther.


There are millions of awesome history books.... thousands are read by Jews.... doesn't substantiate that ERGO they are all the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans. Just means there are good history books.


Every Christmas, MILLIONS of Christians watch "It's a Wonderful Life". Millions do. Millions love that film. Does NOT prove that therefore it is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans. And certainly doesn't mean that ergo every film produced by Frank Capra is such... or every movie made by Liberty Films is that.. or that all movies are that.

It seems you are making enormous, incredible, unsubstantiated LEAPS. I invite you to stand back and consider this....

he celebrated the apparent God given miracle in it

Millions upon millions of books convey history.... even accurate history.... doesn't mean all (or any) of them are thus the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans.

I read a history book, maybe in the third grade or so, that said some dudes signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4... and I celebrated the Fourth of July.... doesn't mean that particular text book is ergo the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans.


It seems to me you are making enormous, incredible, unsubstantiated LEAPS. I invite you to stand back and consider this....




.

 

[Andrew]

1, 2, 3 or 4 Maccabees is not the book of Esther.


There are millions of awesome history books.... thousands are read by Jews.... doesn't substantiate that ERGO they are all the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans. Just means there are good history books.


Every Christmas, MILLIONS of Christians watch "It's a Wonderful Life". Millions do. Millions love that film. Does NOT prove that therefore it is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans. And certainly doesn't mean that ergo every film produced by Frank Capra is such... or every movie made by Liberty Films is that.. or that all movies are that.

It seems you are making enormous, incredible, unsubstantiated LEAPS. I invite you to stand back and consider this....






Millions upon millions of books convey history.... even accurate history.... doesn't mean all (or any) of them are thus the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans.

I read a history book, maybe in the third grade or so, that said some dudes signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4... and I celebrated the Fourth of July.... doesn't mean that particular text book is ergo the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon for doctrine and practice equal in every sense with the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans.


It seems to me you are making enormous, incredible, unsubstantiated LEAPS. I invite you to stand back and consider this....




.

Before Jerome's translation.. What books were in the Church?

 

[Josiah]

Before Jerome's translation.. What books were in the Church?

None.


"THE CHURCH" did not officially declare what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine before 383 AD.

If I'm wrong.... and every Christian parish and person alive from 33 AD until 382 AD had authoritatively, officially declared what is and is not a book that is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine - then tell me when and where THE CHURCH (every Christian alive) so officially, authoritatively, definitively declared that. IF The Church did, you have a place and date for this. And you can substantiate EVERY CHRISTIAN ALIVE in every place where Christians lived acknowledged and accepted this.

Your point that some books have history in them.... that some books and movies and TV shows and songs are quoted by Christians and/or Jews ... what is or is not included in some tome (noting that no tomes EXISTED for the first 1000 years of Christianity) has nothing to do with anything. Unless you want to insist that every book with accurate history in it, everything used in a sermon, everything appearing in a lectionary, every book anyone reads, ERGO - by that - IS therefore, by that reality, IS therefore the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine equal in every possible sense with the Ten Commandments, the Books of Moses, the Epistle to the Romans.

Oh, and questions substantiate absolutely NOTHING.


I invite you to step back and consider the LEAPS you are making.... they are entirely incredible. I think if you step back and consider this, you will acknowledge this.




.



.

 

[Andrew]

None.


"THE CHURCH" did not officially declare what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine before 383 AD.

If I'm wrong.... and every Christian parish and person alive from 33 AD until 382 AD had authoritatively, officially declared what is and is not a book that is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine - then tell me when and where THE CHURCH (every Christian alive) so officially, authoritatively, definitively declared that. IF The Church did, you have a place and date for this. And you can substantiate EVERY CHRISTIAN ALIVE in every place where Christians lived acknowledged and accepted this.

Your point that some books have history in them.... that some books and movies and TV shows and songs are quoted by Christians and/or Jews ... what is or is not included in some tome (noting that no tomes EXISTED for the first 1000 years of Christianity) has nothing to do with anything. Unless you want to insist that every book with accurate history in it, everything used in a sermon, everything appearing in a lectionary, every book anyone reads, ERGO - by that - IS therefore, by that reality, IS therefore the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine equal in every possible sense with the Ten Commandments, the Books of Moses, the Epistle to the Romans.

Oh, and questions substantiate absolutely NOTHING.


I invite you to step back and consider the LEAPS you are making.... they are entirely incredible. I think if you step back and consider this, you will acknowledge this.




.



.

I believe our Sovereign God prepared the gentile world with His inherent Word just in time of for the coming of the Messiah.. I don't believe that God's Word magically became God's Word when a bunch of dudes in a room decided to..
Read some ante Nicene Church fathers (literally Bishops and disciples of the Apostles), they knew the Old Testament and New Testament as if there life depended on it.. and sure enough it cost the lives of many who were according to you.. were vulnerable of witnessing "Platos Republic" to the Jews because they had no stern gospel.. The LXX was preserved in Latin, in fact if it wasn't for the LXX you would be reading "a young maiden will give birth", that very LXX contained more books and if it was good enough for the early Christians (who are very very well documented) then it's good enough for me.
The early Christians noticed the changes of OT quotes in the NT writings and of the missing books by the first several Centuries...
The reason I am as passionate as I am is because when I began reading the Holy Bible I read everything, and then YEARS later I was told that some of what I had read in the Holy Bible was nonsensical uninspired stories that were just some "good read" like a TIMES magazine or 'Discovery' subscription.

Jesus and the Apostles quote the Septuagint, the Septuagint was translated to the Latin vulgate, Jerome had a problem with the Jews who insisted that the Christians don't have the real books, the Pope allowed Jerome to retranslate from the current Hebrew, Jerome befriended the Jews and believed them, he mixed the LXX and proto Masoretic Hebrew together and labeled the missing books "Apocrypha" (some actually being "additions" to books, dividing them into separate books)... but according to you this whole fuss was over nothing anyway because God had not yet appointed a council of inspired men to determine what is Gods word.. before them I guess it was just anyone's guess because His word was obviously not established..
Btw when I say books I mean written word, every synagogue had them, the library had them, the essenes copied them, they were widespread just in time of Christ's appearance which is why I believe it's divinely inspired.. The Word was written for the Gentiles too, but for the Jews first, I can't understand how you can say the early Christians had nothing to study, they had it all from day one, the Jews today still mourn the Septuagint because it was their Holy books given to the gentiles

 

[Lamb]

I believe our Sovereign God prepared the gentile world with His inherent Word just in time of for the coming of the Messiah.. I don't believe that God's Word magically became God's Word when a bunch of dudes in a room decided to..

You asked which books were in the Church before Jerome's translation and Josiah answered None which is correct. If you wanted to know if God's Word was God's Word prior to that Josiah would have answered Yes. Not everything written down was considered God's Word though especially if there were errors in it.

 

[Particular]

This list has all the Old Testament books that are never explicitly quoted in the New Testament.

Judges

Ruth

Ezra

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Lamentations

Obadiah

Jonah

Zephaniah

10 Old Testament Books Never Quoted in the New Testament

"Open Bible" by Ryk Neethling (2011), shared under a Creative Commons Attribution License I recently finished a read-through of the Bible, during which I kept track of every instance the New Testament quotes an Old Testament passage. I counted only direct, explicit quotations, such as those...

www.knowableword.com

 

[Josiah]

I believe....

That's fine, but your whole point is THE CHURCH had chosen which books are and are not THE inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for doctrine equal in every sense to the Ten Commandments and the Epistle to the Romans - and THE CHURCH did (DID) this somewhere between 500 BC and 383 AD.

You (and another, each seeming to echo each other) keep insisting on this.... yet will not - WILL NOT - tell us when and where THE CHURCH (the whole church catholic, every Christian and every parish, ecumenically and universally) DID (an action) THIS (in an authoritative, official, formal, binding, accepted way). You keep being asked to substantiate the claim that THE CHURCH DID THIS and you keep changing the subject, ignoring any substantiation for the claim.

Read some ante Nicene Church fathers, they knew the Old Testament and New Testament as if there life depended on it..

SOME Christians included some quotes or inferences in some of their writings.... references to MANY, MANY works (some later considered canonical, many not considered canonical, most the writings of other "fathers") but your ASSUMPTION is very flawed and entirely incredible: that if something is ever quoted or reference, ERGO it MUST have been authoritatively and officially declared by THE CHURCH as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for doctrine equal in every sense to the Ten Commandments or the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. That's quite an amazing and incredible leap, my friend.

Andrew, have you ever heard a sermon where the pastor quotes from some book or newspaper article or even a song? Or perhaps used a clip from a movie or TV show? Have you ever in your life read a book that uses an illustration or speaks of some historic event or quotes someone? If so, does that mean ERGO that book, that movie, that song, that TV show, that illustration, MUST be officially accepted by ALL Christian persons and parishes as THE inerrant, divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for doctrine at least equal to the Ten Commandments for Books of Moses?

Do you acknowledge the flaw in your whole premise? Do you "see" the incredible LEAP you are making?

that very LXX contained more books

The LXX was an unofficial, JEWISH translation of religious works at times read by Jews. It translated some works into Greek since that had become the common language of people in the area. It was NEVER - not ever - not once - not at ANY time - authorized by anyone for anything as anything. It was a TRANSLATION of some works. Just as Jerome would later do into Latin.... just as Luther would later do into German... just as King James' committee would do into English. Just because stuff is TRANSLATED from one language to another does NOT mean ERGO, "THE CHURCH" officially, formally, authoritatively, in a binding and accepted way, declared that some books are and others are not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo, because of that, is the canon/rule/norm for dogma equal in every sense to the Ten Commandments.

It was a TRANSLATION of some non-authorized works. Did people use it? Sure.... Do people today use the internet? Sure... doesn't mean
"THE CHURCH" authoritatively declared everything on the internet ERGO to be canonical.

Do you acknowledge the flaw in your whole premise? Do you "see" the incredible LEAP you are making (echoing)?

it was good enough for the early Christians

"GOOD ENOUGH" is not THE CHURCH declaring the LXX to be the Christian Bible.

Those same "early Christians" at times use the Didache, the Revelation of Peter and HUNDREDS of other works that you don't accept as something THE CHURCH declared to be canonical. And often they did NOT use 2 Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, the Revelation of John and some others that you do accept. And they also quoted from St. Ignatius.... St Clement..... St. Augustine..... in identical ways to their quoting from 2 Peter.

And there is no denomination that EVER officially authoritatively declared the LXX to be canonical. So you have NOTHING in Christian history to substantiate your claim that the LXX was the canon. SOME parishes used SOME books found in the LXX but that is unrelated to your claim.

Do you acknowledge the flaw in your premise? Do you "see" the incredible LEAP you are echoing?

Btw when I say books I mean written word, every synagogue had them, the library had them, the essenes copied them, they were widespread just in time of Christ's appearance which is why I believe it's divinely inspired..

Jews were not Christians, and thus not "THE CHURCH.' Synagogues were Jewish and not Christians, thus not "THE CHURCH." The Essenes were Jewish and thus not "THE CHURCH."

If you go into the library of any Christian congregation, likely including yours, you will find that MOST of the books in that library are NOT ones ANYONE ON THE PLANET considers canonical, much less present because THE CHURCH (the whole church catholic - every parish, every bishop, every pastor) in an official, formal, authoritative manner, declared that title to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for dogma equal in every sense to the Ten Commandments.

The essenes had a LOT of secular stuff they copied, too. And if your premise is "THE CHURCH" adopted all and only the books the Essenes copies" then you'll have to throw out all the NT.

The first and only time JUDAISM did antything - anything whatsoever - anything at all - in terms of what is and is not canonical IN JUDAISM, was at their Council of Jamnia in 90AD. And JUDAISM 0fficially, formally, authoritatively and in a way all Jews thus followed, embraced the material that is in our 39 books of the NT. Never, ever, not once, did Judaism ever approve or accept or adopt or canonize the LXX or all the stuff in the essene library. It acted ONCE and ONLY ONCE, just ONE TIME in its entire history in this matter.... and not in a way that at all supports your claim. Besides, we're Christians, not Jews. We're still waiting for you to give the place and date (somewhere you seem to claim after 500 BC and 383 AD) when THE CHURCH universally, ecumenically, authoritatively and in a binding and accepted way, did what the Judaism did at Jamnia in 90AD.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours...


.