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

[Andrew]

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.

'None' because there was no church? Or 'none' because the church had no scripture?
If they had no scripture then why does Clement of Rome (a gentile) have so much knowledge of the Old Testament in the first century?

We know Clement was a gentile because he believed in a literal Phoenix due to the bad "science" of that time, he uses it as an example of resurrection.. We know that the creature never existed, but when it comes to characters he lists only biblical characters, he studied scripture well, he is dead on when describing them.. He was an appointed bishop and BEFORE the destruction of the temple..
We consider Maccabees as "other writings", what about the "other writings" that make up part of the Old Testament?
The Tanakh (OT) is comprised of the Law (Torah), the Prophets and "Other writings" (wisdom and history).. why are they kept in and not Sirach or Maccabees? (Wisdom and History)
Because the Jews took them out in 90AD and Aquila (a Jewish convert) re-translated the OT into greek to replace the Septuagint in the synagogues in the 2nd Century..
This means that the LXX Latin Vulgate had translated from the original Septuagint, hence why Clement of Rome and many others quote from it over 300 times in the 1rst 2nd and 3rd Century..

The Church was established in Acts, not centuries later, and Clement was a bishop before 70 AD and knew the Old Testament like the back of his hand (as a gentile)...

So saying that there was "none" contradicts early Christian history and documents..

God prepared the world with a sword for Jews and Gentiles by the 1rst Century, I find that very act something very special.

My friends I am not defending Catholicism nor attacking Protestantism, this is not a lonely belief, there is written documentation of an annual early pilgrimage to the very spot the 72 elders wrote the Septuagint, where Christians camped in celebration.. I've posted it before but no one batted an eye to it so if no one wants to take my word for it you can PM me and I will send you the testimony of that celebration..
It was a praise to God for giving the world the Hebrew Holy text.. meanwhile Jews today annually mourn the Septuagint called the 8th of Tevet

 

[Josiah]

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

Andrew,


See post # 14.


Jerome's translation was not THE CHURCH doing or deciding anything. It was one MAN, one person, one individual.... who did a TRANSLATION... as thousands of others would do. Jerome is not THE CHURCH..... Jerome deciding something is not THE CHURCH deciding anything. He had no book, books hadn't been invented yet. Clement was a bishop (one of millions of bishops) but he was not THE CHURCH. A bishop deciding something is not THE CHURCH deciding anything. Anymore than the bishop of my congregation (although he's a really nice guy; had a nice conversation with him).

In 382 AD, LOTS of written things were read by Jews. In 382 AD, LOTS of written things were read by Christians. In 2020 AD, LOTS of written things are read by Jews, by Christians, by Hindus, by Buddhists, by Agnostics, by Atheists. Your premise that THEREFORE all these works have been officially, authoritatively DECLARED by THE CHURCH to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the rule/canon/norm for doctrine is what I find completely unacceptable and I'm requesting you reconsider.


You (and the friend you seem to echo) found your whole apologetic on some authoritative, official, binding declaration of THE CHURCH somewhere between 500 BC and 383 AD. But we notice: in spite of repeated requests, you and our friend have not given the date and place where THE CHURCH did this. IMO the reason why you persistently dodge this request is that such didn't happen.


YES, everyone who is literate reads stuff... YES, Christian churches have always included stuff in the worship service - hymns, sometimes things from books or TV shows or movies or newspapers or books with illustrations in them or stories of the saints. Your whole apologetic is THEREFORE all of that has been officially, authoritatively, in a binding and universally accepted manner by THE CHURCH that declared such to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for doctrine. Friend, you are confusing some person or group thereof USING something with THE CHURCH authoritatively declaring such to be canonical.


I hope you can at last stand back and see the fundamental flaw in your premise.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew,


See post # 14.


Jerome's translation was not THE CHURCH doing or deciding anything. It was one MAN, one person, one individual.... who did a TRANSLATION... as thousands of others would do. Jerome is not THE CHURCH..... Jerome deciding something is not THE CHURCH deciding anything. He had no book, books hadn't been invented yet. Clement was a bishop (one of millions of bishops) but he was not THE CHURCH. A bishop deciding something is not THE CHURCH deciding anything. Anymore than the bishop of my congregation (although he's a really nice guy; had a nice conversation with him).

In 382 AD, LOTS of written things were read by Jews. In 382 AD, LOTS of written things were read by Christians. In 2020 AD, LOTS of written things are read by Jews, by Christians, by Hindus, by Buddhists, by Agnostics, by Atheists. Your premise that THEREFORE all these works have been officially, authoritatively DECLARED by THE CHURCH to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the rule/canon/norm for doctrine is what I find completely unacceptable and I'm requesting you reconsider.


You (and the friend you seem to echo) found your whole apologetic on some authoritative, official, binding declaration of THE CHURCH somewhere between 500 BC and 383 AD. But we notice: in spite of repeated requests, you and our friend have not given the date and place where THE CHURCH did this. IMO the reason why you persistently dodge this request is that such didn't happen.


YES, everyone who is literate reads stuff... YES, Christian churches have always included stuff in the worship service - hymns, sometimes things from books or TV shows or movies or newspapers or books with illustrations in them or stories of the saints. Your whole apologetic is THEREFORE all of that has been officially, authoritatively, in a binding and universally accepted manner by THE CHURCH that declared such to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for doctrine. Friend, you are confusing some person or group thereof USING something with THE CHURCH authoritatively declaring such to be canonical.


I hope you can at last stand back and see the fundamental flaw in your premise.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


Josiah




.

Jerome's translation is the translation you read now so obviously he did have an impact on the church up to this day

 

[Josiah]

Jerome's translation is the translation you read now so obviously he did have an impact on the church up to this day

No, Andrew. I don't read Latin (I have enough problem with English). I've never even seen this work.

But I think you missed my ENTIRE point concerning it.

See posts 14 and 22.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

No, Andrew. I don't read Latin (I have enough problem with English). I've never even seen this work.

But I think you missed my ENTIRE point concerning it.

See posts 14 and 22.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


Josiah




.

All modern translations even from Wycliffe come from Jerome's translated version.
Since you seem so anti Septuagint and you want the correct 100% masoretic guess what... Mary would have been "maiden" not "a virgin"
Before Jerome the Latin OT was the LXX, Jerome made a hybrid of LXX mixed with the Masoretic... All modern versions come from HIS version

 

[Josiah]

All modern translations even from Wycliffe come from Jerome's translated version.

No. I have not used his translation. I can't because I don't read Latin (I have a hard enough time with English). I've never even seen it, much less used it.

The translation I use used the Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. I've read the entire section on the sources and it never mentions Jerome or his translation or Latin.

Since you seem so anti Septuagint

Where did I post ANYTHING WHATSOEVER against anyone's translation of anything? You must have me confused with another.


Read posts 14 and 22.





.