In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

[Lamb]

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

 

[NathanH83]

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

For one, I think it provides a stepping stone to help us understand how a sacrifice in the present could atone for the sins of men who had died in the past. Since the sacrifices in Leviticus only apply to those who are currently living. But Jesus’ sacrifice atoned for men of the past, even those who died in the days of Noah. 2 Maccabees helps to bridge that gap and explain why that makes sense.


It also helps to provide a backdrop on what the earliest Christians thought about the resurrection. The New Testament talks all about the end time resurrection. But there’s very little in the Old Testament about it. However, 2 Maccabees talks all about a resurrection. Clearly this was very influential in some of the early Christian beliefs.

And, of course it’s important to understand the prophecies in Daniel. Not just because they prophesy about Antiochus, but also because they’re a dual prophecy that pertain to the Antichrist..

But I’m sure any any book of the Bible is going to have hundreds, if not thousands more applications and insights than my small brain is able to pick up on. As Paul said, “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for training, correcting, rebuking, teaching, so that the man of God may be fully equipped.”

 

[Lamb]

For one, I think it provides a stepping stone to help us understand how a sacrifice in the present could atone for the sins of men who had died in the past. Since the sacrifices in Leviticus only apply to those who are currently living. But Jesus’ sacrifice atoned for men of the past, even those who died in the days of Noah. 2 Maccabees helps to bridge that gap and explain why that makes sense.


It also helps to provide a backdrop on what the earliest Christians thought about the resurrection. The New Testament talks all about the end time resurrection. But there’s very little in the Old Testament about it. However, 2 Maccabees talks all about a resurrection. Clearly this was very influential in some of the early Christian beliefs.

And, of course it’s important to understand the prophecies in Daniel. Not just because they prophesy about Antiochus, but also because they’re a dual prophecy that pertain to the Messiah.

But I’m sure any any book of the Bible is going to have hundreds, if not thousands more applications and insights than my small brain is able to pick up on. As Paul said, “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for training, correcting, rebuking, teaching, so that the man of God may be fully equipped.”

How does the bible without the apocrypha lack since the bible is complete in showing us Jesus as Savior?

 

[Andrew]

These especially stand out as prophetic

This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward did he show himself upon earth, and conversed with men.
3:35 Baruch

Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.
He was made to reprove our thoughts.
He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.
We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.
For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity
Wisdom 2:12-23

For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left. After seven days the world that is not yet awake shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish.The earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest there in silence; and the chambers shall give up the souls that have been committed to them.
2 Esdras 7:28-32

 

[Josiah]

A few thoughts....


1. "Apocrypha" means unauthentic, unathoritative, uncanonical, of dubious quality. It's far from unique to religious writings or to Christianity, it just means some writing that likely is not authentic or reliable and is not to be used normatively. When people say "Apocrypha" that's meaningless since we don't know WHICH collection and books they mean since the title only means "not canonical." IMO, the first step is to LIST exactly what writings are to be discussed. In MY opinion, what such books may state is not to be used as canon since they aren't canonical, they aren't to form or norm teachings for us, serving as canon when they aren't canon. It may be a point of interest I agree (ALL writings might be so) but not much more than that.


2. Theologians and biblical scholars often use a far less negative term for these (at least for writings of Christians or Jews). DEUTEROcanonical. "Deutero" means "secondarily, under, submissive to." This is a better term (and the one I use) since it recognizes that for centuries, Christians held these books in some esteem, just not necessarily of equal status. This recognizes that there may be embraced LEVELS of canonicity - some less or under others. But the same issue remains: No one agrees on what is and is not DEUTEROcanonical. The Orthodox Churches have SEVERAL different collections, none official, and with a wide range of concepts of their canonicity. The RCC has yet another collection (only since the 16th Century official and not until recently understood as fully and equally canonical). The Anglican Church has yet another collection in the 39 Articles but their unique collection of DEUTERO books are seen as DEUTEROcanonical. And then there are dozens more out there, and many for the NT too.


3. I'd be careful going down the "but what USE are they" road. Are there any DOGMA taught in them that otherwise would be unknown? Nope. Is there any very important praxis in them that we'd otherwise not know? Nope. And of course the whole reason for considering something as "CANONCIAL" is for it to serve as a "CANON" - a rule, a norm, for the evaluation of disputed dogmas and mandated practices. We need a canon (a rule, a measuring stick) and thus the need for something to be canonical. So, yeah, one could say there's no canonical value here. BUT the same could be said for a lot of books we ACCEPT as canonical. Consider 2-3 John or the Book of Jude. Would anything be "lost" if these books were not embraced as canonical? If we didn't have them? Probably not. And there's probably a number of OT books where that could be said.


4. I FULLY agree there are DEUTERO books that are ignored because, well, they are don't matter much. Christians have DISAGREED on which books are DEUTERO and how they are to be embraced since the dawn of Christianity BUT with a nearly complete lack of passion because, to be frank, none have cared much. Sure, we can find good stuff in them - but then that can be true for thousands of other books, too. Truth is, they just don;t matter much... and none have been willing to fight for some collection of them. SO, why did the RCC make a point at Trent (its meeting shortly after Luther's death) to embrace its OWN UNIQUE set of them? Well, because it was flexing its muscles, its ego, its claim that IT was the one to do such.... and because some (including Calvin) were rejecting them. But as I noted elsewhere, the Catholic Church ignores them (except for an occasional reading in the Lectionary, as can happen in Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries, too). But.... again.... there are a number of OT and NT books that are pretty much ignored, too.



A blessed Pentecost!



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

A few thoughts....


1. No one agrees on what is and is not DEUTEROcanonical. The Orthodox Churches have SEVERAL different collections, none official, and with a wide range of concepts of their canonicity. The RCC has yet another collection (only since the 16th Century official and not until recently understood as fully and equally canonical). The Anglican Church has yet another collection in the 39 Articles but their unique collection of DEUTERO books are seen as DEUTEROcanonical. And then there are dozens more out there, and many for the NT too. When people say "Apocrypha" that's meaningless since we don't know WHICH collection and books they mean.


2. I'd be careful going down the "but what USE are they" road. Are there any DOGMA taught in them that otherwise would be unknown? Nope. Is there any very important praxis in them that we'd otherwise not know? Nope. And of course the whole reason for considering something as "CANONCIAL" is for it to serve as a "CANON" - a rule, a norm, for the evaluation of disputed dogmas and mandated practices. We need a canon (a rule, a measuring stick) and thus the need for something to be canonical. So, yeah, one could say there's no canonical value here. BUT the same could be said for a lot of books we ACCEPT as canonical. Consider 2-3 John or the Book of Jude. Would anything be "lost" if these books were not embraced as canonical? If we didn't have them? Probably not. And there's probably a number of OT books where that could be said.


3. I FULLY agree there are DEUTERO books that are ignored because, well, they are don't matter much. Christians have DISAGREED on which books are DEUTERO and how they are to be embraced since the dawn of Christianity BUT with a nearly complete lack of passion because, to be frank, none have cared much. Sure, we can find good stuff in them - but then that can be true for thousands of other books, too. Truth is, they just don;t matter much... and none have been willing to fight for some collection of them. SO, why did the RCC make a point at Trent (its meeting shortly after Luther's death) to embrace its OWN UNIQUE set of them? Well, because it was flexing its muscles, its ego, its claim that IT was the one to do such.... and because some (including Calvin) were rejecting them. But as I noted elsewhere, the Catholic Church ignores them (except for an occasional reading in the Lectionary, as can happen in Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries, too). But.... again.... there are a number of OT and NT books that are pretty much ignored, too.



A blessed Pentecost!



- Josiah



.

How does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

 

[Andrew]

A few thoughts....


1. No one agrees on what is and is not DEUTEROcanonical. The Orthodox Churches have SEVERAL different collections, none official, and with a wide range of concepts of their canonicity. The RCC has yet another collection (only since the 16th Century official and not until recently understood as fully and equally canonical). The Anglican Church has yet another collection in the 39 Articles but their unique collection of DEUTERO books are seen as DEUTEROcanonical. And then there are dozens more out there, and many for the NT too. When people say "Apocrypha" that's meaningless since we don't know WHICH collection and books they mean.


2. I'd be careful going down the "but what USE are they" road. Are there any DOGMA taught in them that otherwise would be unknown? Nope. Is there any very important praxis in them that we'd otherwise not know? Nope. And of course the whole reason for considering something as "CANONCIAL" is for it to serve as a "CANON" - a rule, a norm, for the evaluation of disputed dogmas and mandated practices. We need a canon (a rule, a measuring stick) and thus the need for something to be canonical. So, yeah, one could say there's no canonical value here. BUT the same could be said for a lot of books we ACCEPT as canonical. Consider 2-3 John or the Book of Jude. Would anything be "lost" if these books were not embraced as canonical? If we didn't have them? Probably not. And there's probably a number of OT books where that could be said.


3. I FULLY agree there are DEUTERO books that are ignored because, well, they are don't matter much. Christians have DISAGREED on which books are DEUTERO and how they are to be embraced since the dawn of Christianity BUT with a nearly complete lack of passion because, to be frank, none have cared much. Sure, we can find good stuff in them - but then that can be true for thousands of other books, too. Truth is, they just don;t matter much... and none have been willing to fight for some collection of them. SO, why did the RCC make a point at Trent (its meeting shortly after Luther's death) to embrace its OWN UNIQUE set of them? Well, because it was flexing its muscles, its ego, its claim that IT was the one to do such.... and because some (including Calvin) were rejecting them. But as I noted elsewhere, the Catholic Church ignores them (except for an occasional reading in the Lectionary, as can happen in Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries, too). But.... again.... there are a number of OT and NT books that are pretty much ignored, too.



A blessed Pentecost!



- Josiah



.

Regardless of every thing you just stated, can you provide any explanation on how the passages I posted in post #4 are not inspired nor prophetic and are merely good to read ?

 

[Josiah]

Regardless of every thing you just stated, can you provide any explanation on how the passages I posted in post #4 are not inspired nor prophetic and are merely good to read ?

ANDREW -


Friend, proving a negative is impossible and not permitted.

I never remotely said that any individual person or church or denomination is forbidden to regard ANYTHING as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Mormons think some things are that you don't. Muslims think some things are that you don't. You, my brother, have the ability to accept or reject ANYTHING you want. It would be silly for me to argue dogmatically that you lack the mental, emotional and spiritual ability to do this. All evidence suggests otherwise.

What I CAN dispute is your claim that "MOST CHRISTIANS" have accepted some unidentified books as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. And it is appropriate (mandated?) that I ask, "Where is the substantiation for this?" Since you claim more than half of all Christians from 33 - 1500 AD (I think you limited your claim to that period), the proverbial ball is in your court to identify those Christians and show that half plus 1 accepted some unidentified books IN THAT WAY. Otherwise...... Now, friend, IF you had said, "The evidence suggests that this list of books was commonly found in Christian Lectionaries and biblical tomes..." that's probably something you could reasonably substantiate - but that does NOT mean they were regarded as fully and equally canonical, of course... and you'd need to deal with the many lectionaries and tomes that had OTHER books in them that don't agree with your list (Nathan dodges this by not identifying his list).... and there is evidence that books in lectionaries and biblical tomes were NOT considered equally canonical until after the Reformation, so you'd still have that issue. Nathan's problem is far bigger than yours. You, at least, are on the right track in noting this is a matter of tradition, of a (loose and informal) consensus, hardly perfect or universal. He, however, totally rejects that view. He holds that CHRISTIANITY - on a certain date, at a certain place - held a PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIANITY, ECUMENICAL meeting (and he docilicly submits to all such meetings) that DECLARED his "set" of books (it's just only the RCC knows this). But he's just wrong. Totally wrong. And he still has the problem, does that make all of them EQUALLY so, because while he copy/pastes the modern RCC spin on all this, it seems NEVER did ANY meeting of ANYTHING declare all books in Scripture as equal (even the RCC has not done this), I fully agree that HAS become common Christian belief in the past 400 years or so but it's never been declared.



Again, brother, IF you and/or Nathan had said: "In Christianity, there are many Bibles, many collections of what is regarded as "SCRIPTURE" in some sense." I think that would be accepted. And if you furthermore stated, "Today, most Christians have two of the Maccabee books in their Bibles" well, I think that too would be universally accepted. And if you furthermore stated, "I have read these two books and found them to be very helpful, informational, inspirational and transformational!" I think we'd all say, "Awesome!" You could futhermore say, "I encourage all my brothers and sisters to read these books." And I (and many others here at CH) would have replied "AMEN!" I would have shared how Luther and the Anglican Church included a bunch of these books, Lutherans and Anglicans often include them in their lectionaries and do studies of them in their parishes." I DO think Nathan has a valid point when he conveys that it's too bad these books have begun unknown to modern American Evangelicals. And of course also a LOT of Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed brothers and sisters, too.

Here's where the problem comes: "And this (unidentified) set of books since 33 AD has been accepted by 51,845,666 Christians (a majority of all Christians past and present) as THE inerrant, FULLY and EQUALLY canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - but I have nothing whatsoever, nothing at all, to support that claim." Or at a certain PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIANITY, ECUMENCIAL meeting of The Ruling Body of all Christianity, it declared that this (unidentified) set of books were authoritatively declared to be THE inerrant, FULLY and EQUALLY canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans but no one seems to know when this happened and not until the Catholic Church at its Council of Trent or John Calvin did anyone know about this authoritative meeting (which is why we have different bibles today, only one of which I agree with)." I hope you see my point.

Brother, few here would dispute that there is great value in books... and not just those that the RCC or EOC or Anglican Church or John Calvin said in the 16th Century are "SCRIPTURE" (None of them defining what that means! None of them saying "equally"). Friend, I could list MANY that have been a blessing to me! And history DOES show that books now largely unknown in 21st Century American "Evangelicalism" were at least in SOME sense and way embraced for many centuries, books (while it seems typically ignored) contain much good. But it's an enormous, an incredible LEAP to insist ERGO someone's "set" of "them" are THE inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (equal to the Books of Moses and Romans) that publishing houses should be legally required to put into all tomes with "BIBLE" written on the cover. I think THAT'S been the point of discussion. And of course, the curiosity....... why does it matter to you SO much that "them" are so regarded and ARE legally mandated to be in tomes of the bible? What's your point? (Nathan believes Christians don't read anything if it's not in a published tome of the Bible but you haven't said).


Is any of that helpful to you?


A blessed Pentecost to you and yours...


- Josiah





.

 

[NathanH83]

How does the bible without the apocrypha lack since the bible is complete in showing us Jesus as Savior?

Because of the prophecies in Daniel.

If all we needed was a Bible that points to Jesus, then there’s plenty in the Old Testament that we can cut out. But my interest is not to see what we can cut out and get away with it. My interest is to have the full Word of God the way that He intended it.

The Gideons would hand out these little pocket Bibles at out high school, which only had the New Testament, plus Psalms and Proverbs. It’s great for pointing someone to Christ, but it’s not a full Bible.

 

[Andrew]

ANDREW -


Friend, proving a negative is impossible and not permitted.

I never remotely said that any individual person or church or denomination is forbidden to regard ANYTHING as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Mormons think some things are that you don't. Muslims think some things are that you don't. You, my brother, have the ability to accept or reject ANYTHING you want. It would be silly for me to argue dogmatically that you lack the mental, emotional and spiritual ability to do this. All evidence suggests otherwise.

What I CAN dispute is your claim that "MOST CHRISTIANS" have accepted some unidentified books as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. And it is appropriate (mandated?) that I ask, "Where is the substantiation for this?" Since you claim more than half of all Christians from 33 - 1500 AD (I think you limited your claim to that period), the proverbial ball is in your court to identify those Christians and show that half plus 1 accepted some unidentified books IN THAT WAY. Otherwise...... Now, friend, IF you had said, "The evidence suggests that this list of books was commonly found in Christian Lectionaries and biblical tomes..." that's probably something you could reasonably substantiate - but that does NOT mean they were regarded as fully and equally canonical, of course... and you'd need to deal with the many lectionaries and tomes that had OTHER books in them that don't agree with your list (Nathan dodges this by not identifying his list).... and there is evidence that books in lectionaries and biblical tomes were NOT considered equally canonical until after the Reformation, so you'd still have that issue. Nathan's problem is far bigger than yours. You, at least, are on the right track in noting this is a matter of tradition, of a (loose and informal) consensus, hardly perfect or universal. He, however, totally rejects that view. He holds that CHRISTIANITY - on a certain date, at a certain place - held a PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIANITY, ECUMENICAL meeting (and he docilicly submits to all such meetings) that DECLARED his "set" of books (it's just only the RCC knows this). But he's just wrong. Totally wrong. And he still has the problem, does that make all of them EQUALLY so, because while he copy/pastes the modern RCC spin on all this, it seems NEVER did ANY meeting of ANYTHING declare all books in Scripture as equal (even the RCC has not done this), I fully agree that HAS become common Christian belief in the past 400 years or so but it's never been declared.



Again, brother, IF you and/or Nathan had said: "In Christianity, there are many Bibles, many collections of what is regarded as "SCRIPTURE" in some sense." I think that would be accepted. And if you furthermore stated, "Today, most Christians have two of the Maccabee books in their Bibles" well, I think that too would be universally accepted. And if you furthermore stated, "I have read these two books and found them to be very helpful, informational, inspirational and transformational!" I think we'd all say, "Awesome!" You could futhermore say, "I encourage all my brothers and sisters to read these books." And I (and many others here at CH) would have replied "AMEN!" I would have shared how Luther and the Anglican Church included a bunch of these books, Lutherans and Anglicans often include them in their lectionaries and do studies of them in their parishes." I DO think Nathan has a valid point when he conveys that it's too bad these books have begun unknown to modern American Evangelicals. And of course also a LOT of Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed brothers and sisters, too.

Here's where the problem comes: "And this (unidentified) set of books since 33 AD has been accepted by 51,845,666 Christians (a majority of all Christians past and present) as THE inerrant, FULLY and EQUALLY canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - but I have nothing whatsoever, nothing at all, to support that claim." Or at a certain PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIANITY, ECUMENCIAL meeting of The Ruling Body of all Christianity, it declared that this (unidentified) set of books were authoritatively declared to be THE inerrant, FULLY and EQUALLY canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans but no one seems to know when this happened and not until the Catholic Church at its Council of Trent or John Calvin did anyone know about this authoritative meeting (which is why we have different bibles today, only one of which I agree with)." I hope you see my point.

Brother, few here would dispute that there is great value in books... and not just those that the RCC or EOC or Anglican Church or John Calvin said in the 16th Century are "SCRIPTURE" (None of them defining what that means! None of them saying "equally"). Friend, I could list MANY that have been a blessing to me! And history DOES show that books now largely unknown in 21st Century American "Evangelicalism" were at least in SOME sense and way embraced for many centuries, books (while it seems typically ignored) contain much good. But it's an enormous, an incredible LEAP to insist ERGO someone's "set" of "them" are THE inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (equal to the Books of Moses and Romans) that publishing houses should be legally required to put into all tomes with "BIBLE" written on the cover. I think THAT'S been the point of discussion. And of course, the curiosity....... why does it matter to you SO much that "them" are so regarded and ARE legally mandated to be in tomes of the bible? What's your point? (Nathan believes Christians don't read anything if it's not in a published tome of the Bible but you haven't said).


Is any of that helpful to you?


A blessed Pentecost to you and yours...


- Josiah





.

No I'm sorry but none of what you wrote was of any help to me.

We are not discussing the books of canon we are discussing the books of the apocrypha and whether or not they contain prophecy of Jesus Christ. Please answer my question regarding the passages I provided in post 4

 

[NathanH83]

How does the bible without the apocrypha lack since the bible is complete in showing us Jesus as Savior?

My main interest originally was not the Apocrypha. I had little to no interest in the Apocrypha.

My main interest originally was answering atheistic objections to the Bible, due to supposed mistakes in the Bible.

One of those supposed “mistakes” was a historical issue that an atheist brought up about the pyramids. An atheist told me that the pyramids were built before the Flood, and that there’s not enough time for the Tower of Babel.

When I looked into it, I eventually found that the Greek Septuagint provides the answer. The genealogy in the LXX has an extra 650 years on the timeline, which clears up this issue with the pyramids and Babel. The LXX also clears up some other historical/timeline issues as well.

What amazed me is that the early church was adamantly defending the timeline in the LXX!

But many ministry leaders today don’t want to take the Greek Septuagint seriously. One main reason why is because of its inclusion of the Apocrypha.

That’s why I decided that I need to investigate the Apocryphal books, and see what’s up with them. And after spending a lot of time on it, my mind is BLOWN!

I had no idea before that Daniel 8 prophesies about Alexander the Great. I had no idea who the tortured men were in Hebrews 11:35. That wasn’t even on my radar. I wasn’t even trying to figure out who the tortured men were. I just came across the answer while researching, and realized, “Oh yea, I always wondered who the tortured men are.” It’s also nice to know just exactly what that holiday was that is mentioned in John 10.

It’s actually been really exciting finding out all this information!

Plus, I absolutely love the stories of Tobit and Judith. They’d make excellent movies.

 

[Josiah]

No I'm sorry but none of what you wrote was of any help to me.

We are not discussing the books of canon we are discussing the books of the apocrypha and whether or not they contain prophecy of Jesus Christ. Please answer my question regarding the passages I provided in post 4

Okay, are you now stating 3 books are NOT canonical? If so, I wonder why it matters if they contain prophecy of Jesus?

Generally, the rubric is that interpretation of the OT depends on the NT. I don't recall that any of these 3 passages are mentioned in the NT as prophecies fulfilled, but that, in and of itself, does not mean they are not. COULD be, I suppose. Might not be. Both are possible - just not enough to go by. But since it seems you want us to assume they are not canonical, then I'm at a loss to know why it matters.... we are not to base teachings on non-canonical books.

I think if we stick to the books you DO want us to regard as canonical, it CAN be determined that there were prophecies that Jesus fulfills, we can be certain because canonical books state that. IMO, it doesn't matter if these are predictions that came true, the point is clear without these.

I would not "sign on" to the following, BUT I do think we can verify that Jesus fulfills prophecy without going to books we aren't to use for teachings.

55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus - Jesus Film Project

Some scholars believe there are more than 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. These prophecies are specific enough that the…

www.jesusfilm.org

.







.

 

[Andrew]

Okay, are you now stating 3 books are NOT canonical? If so, I wonder why it matters if they contain prophecy of Jesus?

Generally, the rubric is that interpretation of the OT depends on the NT. I don't recall that any of these 3 passages are mentioned in the NT as prophecies fulfilled, but that, in and of itself, does not mean they are not. COULD be, I suppose. Might not be. Both are possible - just not enough to go by. But since it seems you want us to assume they are not canonical, then I'm at a loss to know why it matters.... we are not to base teachings on non-canonical books.

I think if we stick to the books you DO want us to regard as canonical, it CAN be determined that there were prophecies that Jesus fulfills, we can be certain because canonical books state that. IMO, it doesn't matter if these are predictions that came true, the point is clear without these.

I would not "sign on" to the following, BUT I do think we can verify that Jesus fulfills prophecy without going to books we aren't to use for teachings.

55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus - Jesus Film Project

Some scholars believe there are more than 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. These prophecies are specific enough that the…

www.jesusfilm.org

.







.

No I am not stating that, we are discussing what the OP calls "apocrypha" according to her denomination respectfully

 

[Andrew]

Okay, are you now stating 3 books are NOT canonical? If so, I wonder why it matters if they contain prophecy of Jesus?

Generally, the rubric is that interpretation of the OT depends on the NT. I don't recall that any of these 3 passages are mentioned in the NT as prophecies fulfilled, but that, in and of itself, does not mean they are not. COULD be, I suppose. Might not be. Both are possible - just not enough to go by. But since it seems you want us to assume they are not canonical, then I'm at a loss to know why it matters.... we are not to base teachings on non-canonical books.

I think if we stick to the books you DO want us to regard as canonical, it CAN be determined that there were prophecies that Jesus fulfills, we can be certain because canonical books state that. IMO, it doesn't matter if these are predictions that came true, the point is clear without these.

I would not "sign on" to the following, BUT I do think we can verify that Jesus fulfills prophecy without going to books we aren't to use for teachings.

55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus - Jesus Film Project

Some scholars believe there are more than 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. These prophecies are specific enough that the…

www.jesusfilm.org

.







.

Wisdom was written around 50 bc, oh how incredibly bold and accurate that prophecy is, yet you are making accusations that I suggest that they are not inspired because I did what the OP asked for, should I have just ignored the thread and said to myself "well the apocrypha books are canon so apocrypha books don't actually exists so this topic makes absolutely no sense to me"?

Just answer the question.

The Son of God suffers a humiliating death by the ungodly who tells him if you are the Son of God then save yourself

Written before the birth of Christ

Prophecy or not prophecy?

 

[TonyC7]

Wisdom was written around 50 bc, oh how incredibly bold and accurate that prophecy is, yet you are making accusations that I suggest that they are not inspired because I did what the OP asked for, should I have just ignored the thread and said to myself "well the apocrypha books are canon so apocrypha books don't actually exists so this topic makes absolutely no sense to me"?

Just answer the question.

The Son of God suffers a humiliating death by the ungodly who tells him if you are the Son of God then save yourself

Written before the birth of Christ

Prophecy or not prophecy?

Why won’t you accept the testimony of Josephus that the Jews only accepted the equivalent of the Protestant Christian Old Testament? What evidence do you have to overturn his plain historical statement in the 1st century?

 

[Andrew]

Why won’t you accept the testimony of Josephus that the Jews only accepted the equivalent of the Protestant Christian Old Testament? What evidence do you have to overturn his plain historical statement in the 1st century?

I prefer a canon that doesn't cut out books such as the Gospels, Apostolic writings, Acts, Revelation etc... you know those books that the Jews found "unworthy" of canon.

I mean what good is a canon that contains all of these messianic end time prophecies but abruptly ends without any explanation?

Talk about a cliffhanger!

I believe the canon should start with the "In the beginning God created.." book and end with the "It is finished!.." book

 

[NathanH83]

Why won’t you accept the testimony of Josephus that the Jews only accepted the equivalent of the Protestant Christian Old Testament? What evidence do you have to overturn his plain historical statement in the 1st century?

Because the early church accepted those books as scripture. The most reasonable conclusion was that the Disciples told them it’s scripture, meaning the Jews accepted them before the time of Christ. Josephus lived AFTER the time of Christ.

 

[TonyC7]

Because the early church accepted those books as scripture. The most reasonable conclusion was that the Disciples told them it’s scripture, meaning the Jews accepted them before the time of Christ. Josephus lived AFTER the time of Christ.

Where are you getting this from? The early church certainly did not accept them. At most it became a controversial topic as the church slide further and further into apostasy over the centuries. Your statement is not accurate. The Jews never accepted them as scripture, which is a major reason why early Christians didn’t either. I’m not sure of any source who disagrees with this.

 

[NathanH83]

Where are you getting this from? The early church certainly did not accept them. At most it became a controversial topic as the church slide further and further into apostasy over the centuries. Your statement is not accurate. The Jews never accepted them as scripture, which is a major reason why early Christians didn’t either. I’m not sure of any source who disagrees with this.

Yes, the early church used the Septuagint. They quoted from the apocryphal books as scripture. I have a 2-hour audio teaching from David Bercot. He read all the ante-Nicene church fathers. I can send you a link if you like.

Also, think about how 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew originally. But now the Hebrew is missing. Sounds to me like a deliberate attempt to get rid of it by the Jews of that time.

 

[TonyC7]

Yes, the early church used the Septuagint. They quoted from the apocryphal books as scripture. I have a 2-hour audio teaching from David Bercot. He read all the ante-Nicene church fathers. I can send you a link if you like.

Also, think about how 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew originally. But now the Hebrew is missing. Sounds to me like a deliberate attempt to get rid of it by the Jews of that time.

That is not a logical explanation. There are always extreme fringe minorities who espouse a deviant view. That proves nothing. The overwhelming majority affirmation throughout history is a much stronger proof that the Jews never did accept it. And this sentiment is bolstered by a secular Jewish historian who at the time had no “dog in the fight.” He recorded the overwhelming view of his people at the time, without any dissenting voices that we know of - and this has also been confirmed by the great number of scholars most knowledgeable on this subject throughout history. And the ancient writings of the church fathers convey this same message.