If the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible, then please explain why Clement of Rome said that Judith is scripture in his letter to the Corinthians?

[atpollard]

They also didn't discuss Obadiah.. indeed there are several books of the Old Testament that are never mentioned in the New Testament.

Then we should not be making claims that the Apostles taught from those books without any evidence to support such a claim.

 

[Andrew]

Philo, who died in 50 AD, describes a festival like celebration and thanksgiving pilgrimage commemorating the Greek translation as divine by both Jews and Gentiles, he records his witnessing and testimony of these events..
Note: first paragraph explains the origin of the first translations of the Hebrew to Greek, the 2nd paragraph details some of the things he witnessed concerning the yearly assembly of appreciation and acceptance of both Jew and gentile

"Therefore, being settled in a secret place, and nothing even being present with them except the elements of nature, the earth, the water, the air, and the heaven, concerning the creation of which they were going in the first place to explain the sacred account; for the account of the creation of the world is the beginning of the law; they, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. And yet who is there who does not know that every language, and the Greek language above all others, is rich in a variety of words, and that it is possible to vary a sentence and to paraphrase the same idea, so as to set it forth in a great variety of manners, adapting many different forms of expression to it at different times. But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.

On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh. And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and feasted with their relations and friends, thinking the shore at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace. In this way those admirable, and incomparable, and most desirable laws were made known to all people, whether private individuals or kings, and this too at a period when the nation had not been prosperous for a long time."

 

[atpollard]

OK, I just searched ALL of 1 Clement and here is the ONE AND ONLY reference to Judith:

“Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman.”

There is NOTHING in 1 Clement about the book of Judith being Scripture. All Cement expected was for the people living in Corinth to be familiar with the story. This entire “debate” has been a snipe hunt.

 

[atpollard]

Now for the issue of Clement speaking with Peter and Paul. Here is EVERYTHING in 1 Clement on Peter and Paul:

“But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.”

Nowhere in the text does Clement even come close to suggesting that he had known or spoken with either man. All Clement claims is that Peter and Paul are of the same “generation” as himself and the Corinthians (as contrasted with the ancient martyrs).

Again this has been a snipe hunt.

 

[atpollard]

Philo, who died in 50 AD, describes a festival like celebration and thanksgiving pilgrimage commemorating the Greek translation as divine by both Jews and Gentiles, he records his witnessing and testimony of these events..
Note: first paragraph explains the origin of the first translations of the Hebrew to Greek, the 2nd paragraph details some of the things he witnessed concerning the yearly assembly of appreciation and acceptance of both Jew and gentile

The Alexandrian Jews and Christians also gave the Church most of its Gnostic teaching and many of its earliest heresies. It was simply a center of Greek learning, scholarship and culture with a strong trade link with Israel.

 

[NathanH83]

OK, I just searched ALL of 1 Clement and here is the ONE AND ONLY reference to Judith:

“Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman.”

There is NOTHING in 1 Clement about the book of Judith being Scripture. All Cement expected was for the people living in Corinth to be familiar with the story. This entire “debate” has been a snipe hunt.

If you read it in context, he mentions Moses, Judith, and Esther, and makes it clear that he’s giving examples found in scripture.

Don’t just pull out the one single verse where Judith is mentioned. Read it in context.

 

[NathanH83]

OK, I just searched ALL of 1 Clement and here is the ONE AND ONLY reference to Judith:

“Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman.”

There is NOTHING in 1 Clement about the book of Judith being Scripture. All Cement expected was for the people living in Corinth to be familiar with the story. This entire “debate” has been a snipe hunt.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians:

“Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount...”

He goes into an example about Moses. Then he says this:

“Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who seeth all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.”

So first he says to call to remembrance the things in the Sacred Scriptures. And then he mentions the examples of Moses, then Judith, and then Esther.

Then later on he says this:

“In this manner our forbears, mentioned above, were acceptable and cherished a humble frame of mind toward the Father and God and Creator and all mankind. And we have all three more pleasure in recalling this to your memory because we are well aware that we are writing to persons who are believers and highly distinguished and deeply versed in the writings that contain God’s educative revelation.”

Again, he repeats that the examples mentioned above are from the writings that contain God’s educative revelation.

“It is right, therefore, that we should adhere to so many and such notable examples and bow the neck and discharge the duty of obedience, so that, ceasing from that futile dissension, we may without any blame reach the goal set before us in truth. You certainly will give us the keenest pleasure if you prove obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, and extirpate the lawless passion of your jealousy in accordance with the pleas we have made in this letter for peace and concord.”

 

[Andrew]

Except I never said anything about Clement getting anything “right” or “wrong” since you have yet to actually PROVE (you know, by providing more evidence than your unsupported opinion) that Clement actually even “quoted” from Judith, let alone claimed that Judith is God Breathed Holy Scripture on a par with the writings of Moses or Paul. All that you have actually “proven” is that Clement mentioned Judith (the woman) as an example of someone who loved. It was the translator that claimed it was a reference to the Book of Judith and nowhere in the quoted text was it ever called scripture. Telling me to do your job and go search for proof that Clement called Judith scripture is a silly argument. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PROVE YOUR OPINIONS!

So Clement must have been discussing another Judith with the same story found in the book of Judith?
I wouldn't call this a mere allusion, he obviously expects the church to know this story to relate to them.

The letters from Clement aren't canon and I'm not trying to plead that they should be canon or even that it could be canon, I'm just researching 1rst century documents that give us a window into what the early church viewed as scripture.
Was it not from God that His words of truth be given to the nations through the Greek?
Was it just a coincidence that the nations had these books handy just at the arrival of Christ Jesus?
The Masoretic on which you base your OT canon on did not exists during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, whence did it come? From an earlier Hebrew text, a Hebrew text that aligns perfectly to the New Testament quotes and with the prophecies and also with the many documents that side with an earlier Hebrew text, and which the Greek Septuagint was translated from.
Judith is just one example, the so called "Apocrypha" has been quoted over 300 times by early Christian church fathers (ante nicene), what advantage was it for them to quote any thing other than the Scripture when teaching during the time when Christianity was still considered a benign yet blasphemous cult?

I'm just using Judith as an example of a character from a book that was included in the greek translations before the first century AD, translated by willing Jews from their Hebrew text..

1. The Greek translation has become widely circulated by the time of Christ's arrival
2. Aquila of Sinope replaces the translations in the greek speaking synagogues with his new translation in the 2nd century under the authority of Jewish Rabbis
3. 4rth century Jerome sides with unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem and labels the books they took out as "Apocrypha" (I guess the whole New Testament could be considered "apocrypha")
4. Catholicism eventually accepts Jeromes translation of the LXX mixed with the Masoretic and adopts the term "apocrypha" for a "second canon"
5. KJV 1611 is the standard bible and includes the "Apocrypha" section
6. Protestants reject the "Apocrypha" section completely and want it out of the bible
7. The KJV is revised without the "Apocrypha" section in 1769

 

[NathanH83]

I claim to have lived at the same time and in the same state as Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Art Garfunkel and Donald Trump throughout my life. Does that mean that we should assume that I have spoken with all of them?

It is not for me to prove something never happened.
It is for you to produce ANYTHING that indicates Paul or Peter told Clement anything at all about Judith (or anything else for that matter).

To be blunt, from the Baptist perspective of each local assembly answering to Jesus Christ directly, Clement was playing the part of a bully attempting to force Christians to act contrary to their consciences and just “sit down, shut up and submit to their betters in the elite Priestly Caste hierarchy”. That makes any claims to Apostolic connection very self serving and suspiciously convenient. The actions of the Church in Corinth were none of the business of the Bishop of Rome. Paul appointed Elders in Corinth to deal with Corinth and Clement should have worried about his congregation in Rome more than expanding the personal political power of Bishop of Rome across the empire. It was exactly this attitude that drove the rest of Christendom away from Rome in the Great Schism.

So you admit that you can’t prove the claim that you made, that Clement never spoke with Paul or Peter. That’s what I thought.

 

[Andrew]

The Alexandrian Jews and Christians also gave the Church most of its Gnostic teaching and many of its earliest heresies. It was simply a center of Greek learning, scholarship and culture with a strong trade link with Israel.

Christians did not need a canon to see that these "other gospels which are not gospels at all" were forewarned of by Paul, The Gospel stands everlasting regardless of Gnostic gospels that are passed around because they teach the opposite of the Gospel and the Old Testament as well..
This evidence is found in the Body of Christ (His Church) withstanding against the gates of hell.
The Quran adopted these stories because Muhammad couldn't distinguish between Gnosticism and Christianity, no canon did his followers any good.
The NT canon is appropriate, but declaring the OT as it was given to us by God from the get go as "pending canon" was a goof, we already had all we needed from day one regarding the Hebrew Holy text (OT)

 

[Andrew]

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians:

“Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount...”

He goes into an example about Moses. Then he says this:

“Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who seeth all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.”

So first he says to call to remembrance the things in the Sacred Scriptures. And then he mentions the examples of Moses, then Judith, and then Esther.

Then later on he says this:

“In this manner our forbears, mentioned above, were acceptable and cherished a humble frame of mind toward the Father and God and Creator and all mankind. And we have all three more pleasure in recalling this to your memory because we are well aware that we are writing to persons who are believers and highly distinguished and deeply versed in the writings that contain God’s educative revelation.”

Again, he repeats that the examples mentioned above are from the writings that contain God’s educative revelation.

“It is right, therefore, that we should adhere to so many and such notable examples and bow the neck and discharge the duty of obedience, so that, ceasing from that futile dissension, we may without any blame reach the goal set before us in truth. You certainly will give us the keenest pleasure if you prove obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, and extirpate the lawless passion of your jealousy in accordance with the pleas we have made in this letter for peace and concord.”

Thank you
Clement is preaching Scripture and using Judith as one of his examples from Scripture

 

[atpollard]

The letters from Clement aren't canon and I'm not trying to plead that they should be canon or even that it could be canon, I'm just researching 1rst century documents that give us a window into what the early church viewed as scripture.

The title of this topic starts out “If the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible”, so I have no idea what distinction you have in your mind between “canon” and “scripture”. For me, the terms are synonymous and Judith is NEITHER canon nor scripture ... it is a religious story that may contain spiritual truths, but it is not the God breathed, infallible word of God and I have seen nothing to convince me that the Church ever believed that it was.

Clement referenced an event from it in 1 Clement indicating that it was KNOWN to Clement and probably KNOWN to the leaders of the church in Corinth. That does not necessitate it being Holy Scripture. Reading the quote in context, it was a convenient reference to bolster Clement‘s POLITICAL point that was the actual purpose of his letter.

 

[atpollard]

So you admit that you can’t prove the claim that you made, that Clement never spoke with Paul or Peter. That’s what I thought.

Neither can you prove the claim you made that Clement ever spoke with Paul or Peter.
Nor can you prove the claim you made that Paul and Peter sent a “memo” telling EVERYONE that Judith was scripture.

Just for the record, it is typically not possible to prove a negative. How does one prove that Bigfoot does not exist? The burden of proof rests on someone claiming the positive (one must prove Bigfoot does exist or the absence of proof indicates that Bigfoot does not exist). So the lack of any record or claim by anyone alive then that Clement spoke to Peter and Paul, indicates that, like Bigfoot, the conversation does not exist.)

 

[Andrew]

I'm just going to leave this here..

 

[NathanH83]

Neither can you prove the claim you made that Clement ever spoke with Paul or Peter.
Nor can you prove the claim you made that Paul and Peter sent a “memo” telling EVERYONE that Judith was scripture.

Just for the record, it is typically not possible to prove a negative. How does one prove that Bigfoot does not exist? The burden of proof rests on someone claiming the positive (one must prove Bigfoot does exist or the absence of proof indicates that Bigfoot does not exist). So the lack of any record or claim by anyone alive then that Clement spoke to Peter and Paul, indicates that, like Bigfoot, the conversation does not exist.)

I know that Tertullian said that the Roman Church believed that Clement was ordained by Peter. So, yes, there were people back then who made that claim.

So, if Peter ordained Clement, and Peter did not consider Judith to be scripture, it’s quite odd that Peter ordained someone who thought Judith was scripture.

Surely, Peter would not ordained a leader who was so ignorant of the Christian Faith that he doesn’t even know something as basic as which books belong in the Old Testament.

Sounds to me that Clement considered Judith to be scripture because Peter did too.

You have no explanation how Peter rejected Judith, and then Clement immediately accepts this book, in opposition to Peter’s beliefs as to which books belong in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

ANDREW

Who else but actual Jews translated the Hebrew to Greek (Septuagint/LXX)?

No one knows who did that translation.... their names have been lost to history.

But once again, my friend, you keep throwing out stuff that is ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY, WHOLLY IRELEVANT to the issue. Let's say a non-Hebrew was involved in a translation of some books, how in the world would that prove or disprove that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Yeah, the Earth is mostly around and dogs are popular pets and most of the other things you keep throwing out there, but when are you going to address the ISSUE? Where is this authoritative, definitive, ecumenical declaration of a list of books by "The Church?" And does that list have on it all the books it seems you and Nathan say SHOULD be on it?


Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?

Judith comes from the Septuagint

Well, Judith is one of MANY books that was translated into Greek.... so what? Go to any library and you'll find THOUSANDS of books that have been translated from their original language. And as you know, Judaism did NOTHING about what is or is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans - nothing - until 90 AD (which you oddly claim is AFTER one person wrote a letter, something I can find no one affirming), only in 90 AD did Judaism put ANYTHING into THEIR canon (and nope, Judith isn't there) but this was a JEWISH council.... in 90 AD..... after most if not all the Apostles were died. Now, LOTS of books were translated into LOTS of languages after 90 AD.... it hardly proves that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans



Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?

the Jews indeed put this in their greek translations

.... a few Jewish PEOPLE translated some works. A tiny number of individual Jews did this, Judaism did not (there's no evidence Judaism even requested or authorized it). Jews often no longer used Hebrew..... Jews used lots of books ... there was a desire for such to be available in the language they used/knew. Nice of them. A good thing, IMO. Now, pray tell, how does that prove THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I suspect that there are STILL Hebrews translating books (although probably not Judith), but pray tell, please, how does that prove that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I accept your point that likely those who translated some books from Hebrew into Greek were Jews (they probably were all males, too) but how does that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?



Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?

if a translation of the Hebrew is null and void than any English version is likewise null and void.

1. There is no popular English translation of the Bible that is a translation of the LXX. ALL of them go from the Hebrew and Greek. What popular English translations do you know of that does NOT use the Hebrew for the OT but instead is only an English translation of the LXX?

2. NO ONE uses a translation as the canon in theology; they ALL use the original Hebrew and Greek. Why, most pastors don't even use ANY translation for sermons or Bible studies; I have NEVER seen my pastor holding or using ANY translation - anywhere - ever - for anything.



Please read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?





.

 

[Andrew]

Josiah I read your post over and over but I still don't agree with the logic you are using.
It's not just Nathan and I who believe this btw, there are churches in the east and west who value these books the same way so we aren't lone wolves.
And by "these books" I mean Judith, alone, entirely alone, just for the sake of argument
The more I study the ECF the more I am convinced that they weren't lone wolves either, nor were all of the early Christian church goers who knew the "story of Judith" and defended the God given Holy scriptures to the point of persecution and death.
I don't claim to have the experience of living in those days when the greek translation was all they had, but I have a pretty good idea of it through the overwhelming documentation we have on early Church writings and even secular witnesses, as if the disagreements between the NT quotations vs the Masoretic aren't enough to raise questions

 

[NathanH83]

ANDREW





No one knows who did that translation.... their names have been lost to history.

But once again, my friend, you keep throwing out stuff that is ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY, WHOLLY IRELEVANT to the issue. Let's say a non-Hebrew was involved in a translation of some books, how in the world would that prove or disprove that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Yeah, the Earth is mostly around and dogs are popular pets and most of the other things you keep throwing out there, but when are you going to address the ISSUE? Where is this authoritative, definitive, ecumenical declaration of a list of books by "The Church?" And does that list have on it all the books it seems you and Nathan say SHOULD be on it?


Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?






Well, Judith is one of MANY books that was translated into Greek.... so what? Go to any library and you'll find THOUSANDS of books that have been translated from their original language. And as you know, Judaism did NOTHING about what is or is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans - nothing - until 90 AD (which you oddly claim is AFTER one person wrote a letter, something I can find no one affirming), only in 90 AD did Judaism put ANYTHING into THEIR canon (and nope, Judith isn't there) but this was a JEWISH council.... in 90 AD..... after most if not all the Apostles were died. Now, LOTS of books were translated into LOTS of languages after 90 AD.... it hardly proves that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans



Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?






.... a few Jewish PEOPLE translated some works. A tiny number of individual Jews did this, Judaism did not (there's no evidence Judaism even requested or authorized it). Jews often no longer used Hebrew..... Jews used lots of books ... there was a desire for such to be available in the language they used/knew. Nice of them. A good thing, IMO. Now, pray tell, how does that prove THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I suspect that there are STILL Hebrews translating books (although probably not Judith), but pray tell, please, how does that prove that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I accept your point that likely those who translated some books from Hebrew into Greek were Jews (they probably were all males, too) but how does that THE CHURCH officially, formally, authoritatively and in a binding/accepted way, declared that all (and only) the writings that you and Nathan think should be accept as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?



Read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?







1. There is no popular English translation of the Bible that is a translation of the LXX. ALL of them go from the Hebrew and Greek. What popular English translations do you know of that does NOT use the Hebrew for the OT but instead is only an English translation of the LXX?

2. NO ONE uses a translation as the canon in theology; they ALL use the original Hebrew and Greek. Why, most pastors don't even use ANY translation for sermons or Bible studies; I have NEVER seen my pastor holding or using ANY translation - anywhere - ever - for anything.



Please read posts 22, 25, 28 and 30.... all of which it seems you are evading/ignoring?





.

You’re very repetitive

 

[atpollard]

I know that Tertullian said that the Roman Church believed that Clement was ordained by Peter. So, yes, there were people back then who made that claim.

Heresay, not evidence.
I know there are people who say that they have seen Bigfoot. So what does that prove?

 

[atpollard]

I'm just going to leave this here..

Was St Jerome an Apostle or companion of the Apostles that what he wrote is infallible scripture?