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

[Josiah]

In Eusebius’ Chronicon, he compared the Hebrew and Greek

NATHAN


I researched this writing of this man. I could find
NOTHING about him being fluent in both Hebrew and and Greek......
NOTHING that remotely suggested that he knew Hebrew AT ALL.
NOTHING that indicated he had manuscripts of "OLDER HEBREW" or that he compared these "OLDER HEBREW" manuscriptes with anything.

Please provide your evidence that his man was fluent in ancient Hebrew... that he had manscriptes of some "OLDER HEBREW" and that he personally compared the "OLDER HEBREW" texts he had with some Greek translation. Where he quotes verbatim from his OLDER Hebrew manuscriptes he had (in Hebrew) with the Greek he had from a translation. Please provide for us the documents where he 'compared" ancient Hebrew to a Greek translation. I could find NOTHING that remotely suggests Eusebius' "Chronicon" has any Hebrew in it AT ALL. Or any indication that he was fluent in both languages. Or that he owned manscriptes of some "OLDER Hebrew." I have no reason to doubt you sharing what he claimed, but I can find ZERO evidence that it's true (or even that he claimed it).



And you offer him as ONE example (and that's good).... but you suggested early Christians were fluent in both ancient Hebrew AND koine Greek but held a Greek translation as more reliable than the Hebrew. You gave a man (great!) but even if you prove he was fluent in both languages, compared both languages, and concluded that a translation was more reliable than the original, how does that substantiate that all other Christians concluded the same thing? One is not all, or even most or even two.


How did this man have access to the "older Hebrew" texts? You say he claimed he knew these "older" texts.... how so? What evidence does he offer that he had these "OLDER" texts? And if he did, as you claim, why did he say a Greek TRANSLATION of them is more accurate than the OLDER HEBREW he had? Why not say, "The OLDER texts before me are more reliable than the NEWER ones everyone else has. why mention a TRANSLATION? Or is he guessing or just making an unsubstantiated claim (or perhaps lying)?



Friend, I strongly suspect that some Christians used a Greek translation of the Hebrew for a very simple reason: They could not read Hebrew. They used a translation for exactly the same reason you and I do, we can't read the Hebrew. That's it. Nothing more going on here. No other significance to this. I doubt the claim that all Christians knew Hebrew but used a Greek TRANSLATION because they viewed the TRANSLATION as the REAL Scriptures and more accurate than the Hebrew. I suspect it was common to use the Greek because they could read Greek but not Hebrew.... the same reason you and I read an ENGLISH TRANSLATION rather than the Hebrew. That's it. No more significance here. Nothing more you can make of this.

Eusebius says that the Septuagint is what has been handed down to us from the Apostles, and that it’s the version used by the church of Christ which has spread throughout the world.

IF he said that a Greek TRANSLATION was "handed down by the Apostles" then he was wrong.

There was a translation LONG before any Apostle was born... the JEWS had a Greek TRANSLATION long before Christ was born... no Apostle did any Greek TRANSLATION of anything that we know of. Now, I understand there's some evidence that they USED a translation (especially Paul) but that doesn't mean they "handed it down." I think this man is wrong on that point.

Example: Billy Graham consistently used the KJV in his sermons. I'm positive he didn't in preparing those, he would have used the Greek but when he quoted the Bible in his sermon, rather than do his own translation (as my pastor does) he used the KJV. Now, does that mean he proclaimed the that TRANSLATION to be the Bible (KJV ONLY guy) and more accurate than the Greek? I doubt it. I suspect he simply used the most popular, best known ENGLISH translation when addressing ENGLISH speaking people. He didn't "hand down" the KJV, he simply used it, a whole other enchilada as you of course know. People who don't know ancient Hebrew or Greek usually use a translation.



Well, give us the list of all Christians from 33-313 AD that were fluent in BOTH Hebrew and Greek but held that Greek was more reliable than the Hebrew, the translation better than the original, and documents where they "COMPARED" the two.




.

.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

One thing that really stands out to me about the apocrypha is this:

I could never understand Daniel 8. Even after 20 years of attending church events regularly, and reading through the Bible multiple times, and I’ve still never understood Daniel 8.

But one day I watched a bunch of documentaries about Alexander the Great. Documentaries from PBS, BBC, History Channel, etc.

Then I went back and re-read Daniel 8, and suddenly the chapter came ALIVE! I could finally understand it. I realized that it’s prophesying about what I had just learned about in these documentaries.

Daniel 8 was prophetically speaking of Alexander defeating the Persians, dying at a young age, and then his kingdom being split up among his 4 generals who became kings themselves, and split up the Greek empire among themselves.

But I didn’t understand why it took so long for me to understand this chapter. After all, why should I have to read a SECULAR history book, or watch a secular documentary from PBS and the History Channel in order to understand BIBLICAL history?

Shouldn’t this history be in the Bible?

Something about that just didn’t make sense to me. I mean, surely if there was a book of the Bible containing this history, then certainly I would have been able to pick up on what Daniel 8 was prophesying about much sooner. I shouldn’t have had to go for over 20 years being completely clueless about this.

Something in my spirit just really felt like this history really should have been in our Bibles. I should not have had to go for this long not being able to understand these prophesies.

Well, later on after this, I decided to read the books of the Maccabees because I wanted to understand the holiday that Jesus celebrated in John 10:22. I hadn’t read either of the Maccabees yet at this point in time.

I started in 1 Maccabees chapter 1. And I found that the very first chapter contains the very historical information that Daniel 8 prophesies about. This chapter mentions Alexander being the son of Phillip, king of Macedon, then becoming king of the Greeks, defeating the Persians in battle, becoming prideful and dying at a young age, and then his kingdom being divided among his 4 generals.

I couldn’t believe it!

Here I was JUST thinking that there should be a book in the Bible containing this history. And then I come to find out…there IS a book of the Bible containing this history!! It’s been there all along! I just never bothered to read it, because the version of the Bible that I used didn’t contain Maccabees.

Now, if I was a Christian living in the 1600’s or 1700’s, and I was reading the KJV, then I’d have the Apocryphal section in my Bible (the section wasn’t taken out until the late 1800’s). Plus, I’d also have marginal notes in Daniel 8 pointing me to Maccabees.

But no, I was a kid in the 1990’s reading the NIV, which contained no Apocryphal section, and had no marginal notes in Daniel 8 pointing to Maccabees. And as a result, I’ve been clueless about that chapter for a very long time, regardless of the fact that I’ve been reading through the Bible multiple times, and been involved in tons of church and ministry events over the past 20 years.

So in order to address the original question:

How does the apocrypha point someone to Christ?

I’m not exactly sure.

But honestly, I think there’s lots of things in the Old Testament, which I don’t exactly know how they point someone to Christ.

How does the story of Nehemiah rebuilding the wall point someone to Christ? I don’t know. But I know the Bible is incomplete without it.

How does the story of Esther point someone to Christ? I don’t exactly know. But it’s an amazing story and I love it. And the Bible is incomplete without it. Maybe someone else can draw some parallels or find some symbolism in Esther, and come up with an explanation about how Esther points to Christ.

How does Daniel 8 point someone to Christ? I don’t know. But I’d like to know its fulfillment. And I don’t think the Bible is complete without containing that history which fulfills it.

But even though I don’t know how Daniel 8 points someone to Christ, I DO know how Daniel 9 points to Christ, since it prophesies about the 70 weeks and the exact timing of when the Messiah is supposed to show up.

Should we only study Daniel 9, and the prophecy of the 70 weeks because that’s what points to Christ, but fail to study Daniel 8 just because it doesn’t point directly to Christ? I don’t think so. I want a full, complete Bible, regardless of how much a chapter does or does not point directly to Christ.

I hope that answers your question.

As a Catholic, I don't need that homework. I just accept the Church Councils, because Jesus said (to the first hierarchs He established in His Holy Church, His one and only Bride), "Whoever hears you, hears Me...." Jesus didn't love only that first generation of Christians and teach only them infallibly, but left an infallible teaching office in His Church, vested in His Apostles and their successors down to the present day. That's why we are certain that Maccabees is Holy Scripture, and the Book of Enoch ain't.

 

[TonyC7]

As a Catholic, I don't need that homework. I just accept the Church Councils, because Jesus said (to the first hierarchs He established in His Holy Church, His one and only Bride), "Whoever hears you, hears Me...." Jesus didn't love only that first generation of Christians and teach only them infallibly, but left an infallible teaching office in His Church, vested in His Apostles and their successors down to the present day. That's why we are certain that Maccabees is Holy Scripture, and the Book of Enoch ain't.

If the Catholic church’s teachings are infallible, then why have they changed so much over the past millennia? They must have been wrong at some point.

 

[Origen]

Because the early church accepted those books as scripture.

Some did and some did not.

The most reasonable conclusion was that the Disciples told them it’s scripture

Zero evidence.

meaning the Jews accepted them before the time of Christ.

Zero evidence.

NEXT!!!

 

[Josiah]

As a Catholic, I don't need that homework. I just accept the Church Councils, because Jesus said (to the first hierarchs He established in His Holy Church, His one and only Bride), "Whoever hears you, hears Me...." Jesus didn't love only that first generation of Christians and teach only them infallibly, but left an infallible teaching office in His Church, vested in His Apostles and their successors down to the present day. That's why we are certain that Maccabees is Holy Scripture, and the Book of Enoch ain't.

JOSHUA -

And if Nathan was a docilic Catholic, your point would apply to him too. And you are correct, no apologetic would be needed - the view is beyond accountability, true simply because the source can't be wrong.

But he's never indicated he is Catholic. Indeed, he suggests his church prohibited him from reading any writings other than Calvin's 66 so I don't think it is possible that he is Catholic (although maybe he converted to such).

And to the point of this thread: Do these books specifically point to JESUS? I'm not sure the Catholic Church insists that in order for something to be canonical, it MUST specifically and clearly point to JESUS, I think the Catholic Church simply holds that it is canonical because it is divine and true. Lamm is asking not if some book has been accepted in some way by some church but does it specifically, clearly point to one person: JESUS.




.

 

[NathanH83]

NATHAN


I researched this writing of this man. I could find
NOTHING about him being fluent in both Hebrew and and Greek......
NOTHING that remotely suggested that he knew Hebrew AT ALL.
NOTHING that indicated he had manuscripts of "OLDER HEBREW" or that he compared these "OLDER HEBREW" manuscriptes with anything.

Please provide your evidence that his man was fluent in ancient Hebrew... that he had manscriptes of some "OLDER HEBREW" and that he personally compared the "OLDER HEBREW" texts he had with some Greek translation. Where he quotes verbatim from his OLDER Hebrew manuscriptes he had (in Hebrew) with the Greek he had from a translation. Please provide for us the documents where he 'compared" ancient Hebrew to a Greek translation. I could find NOTHING that remotely suggests Eusebius' "Chronicon" has any Hebrew in it AT ALL. Or any indication that he was fluent in both languages. Or that he owned manscriptes of some "OLDER Hebrew." I have no reason to doubt you sharing what he claimed, but I can find ZERO evidence that it's true (or even that he claimed it).



And you offer him as ONE example (and that's good).... but you suggested early Christians were fluent in both ancient Hebrew AND koine Greek but held a Greek translation as more reliable than the Hebrew. You gave a man (great!) but even if you prove he was fluent in both languages, compared both languages, and concluded that a translation was more reliable than the original, how does that substantiate that all other Christians concluded the same thing? One is not all, or even most or even two.


How did this man have access to the "older Hebrew" texts? You say he claimed he knew these "older" texts.... how so? What evidence does he offer that he had these "OLDER" texts? And if he did, as you claim, why did he say a Greek TRANSLATION of them is more accurate than the OLDER HEBREW he had? Why not say, "The OLDER texts before me are more reliable than the NEWER ones everyone else has. why mention a TRANSLATION? Or is he guessing or just making an unsubstantiated claim (or perhaps lying)?



Friend, I strongly suspect that some Christians used a Greek translation of the Hebrew for a very simple reason: They could not read Hebrew. They used a translation for exactly the same reason you and I do, we can't read the Hebrew. That's it. Nothing more going on here. No other significance to this. I doubt the claim that all Christians knew Hebrew but used a Greek TRANSLATION because they viewed the TRANSLATION as the REAL Scriptures and more accurate than the Hebrew. I suspect it was common to use the Greek because they could read Greek but not Hebrew.... the same reason you and I read an ENGLISH TRANSLATION rather than the Hebrew. That's it. No more significance here. Nothing more you can make of this.






IF he said that a Greek TRANSLATION was "handed down by the Apostles" then he was wrong.

There was a translation LONG before any Apostle was born... the JEWS had a Greek TRANSLATION long before Christ was born... no Apostle did any Greek TRANSLATION of anything that we know of. Now, I understand there's some evidence that they USED a translation (especially Paul) but that doesn't mean they "handed it down." I think this man is wrong on that point.

Example: Billy Graham consistently used the KJV in his sermons. I'm positive he didn't in preparing those, he would have used the Greek but when he quoted the Bible in his sermon, rather than do his own translation (as my pastor does) he used the KJV. Now, does that mean he proclaimed the that TRANSLATION to be the Bible (KJV ONLY guy) and more accurate than the Greek? I doubt it. I suspect he simply used the most popular, best known ENGLISH translation when addressing ENGLISH speaking people. He didn't "hand down" the KJV, he simply used it, a whole other enchilada as you of course know. People who don't know ancient Hebrew or Greek usually use a translation.



Well, give us the list of all Christians from 33-313 AD that were fluent in BOTH Hebrew and Greek but held that Greek was more reliable than the Hebrew, the translation better than the original, and documents where they "COMPARED" the two.




.

.

Eusebius: Chronicle (5) - translation

A translation of Eusebius' Chronicle, Book 1, pages 71-131 (Schoene)

www.attalus.org

 

[NathanH83]

JOSHUA -

And if Nathan was a docilic Catholic, your point would apply to him too. And you are correct, no apologetic would be needed - the view is beyond accountability, true simply because the source can't be wrong.

But he's never indicated he is Catholic. Indeed, he suggests his church prohibited him from reading any writings other than Calvin's 66 so I don't think it is possible that he is Catholic (although maybe he converted to such).




.

No, I’m not Catholic.
Never have been. Never will be.

I disagree STRONGLY with many beliefs in the Catholic Church.
Like, Mary was a virgin her whole life?
Church leaders can’t get married?
Uh, Paul said they could get married…to one wife.

So no, I have no intentions of joining Catholicism.
The Maccabees are JEWISH books.

 

[Albion]

As a Catholic, I don't need that homework. I just accept the Church Councils, because Jesus said (to the first hierarchs He established in His Holy Church, His one and only Bride), "Whoever hears you, hears Me...." Jesus didn't love only that first generation of Christians and teach only them infallibly, but left an infallible teaching office in His Church, vested in His Apostles and their successors down to the present day. That's why we are certain that Maccabees is Holy Scripture, and the Book of Enoch ain't.

That's hardly any different from the stance that's adopted by almost every cult--"The Bible says that 'Whoever hears you, hears me,' and the people being addressed were our guys."

 

[NathanH83]

JOSHUA -

And to the point of this thread: Do these books specifically point to JESUS? I'm not sure the Catholic Church insists that in order for something to be canonical, it MUST specifically and clearly point to JESUS, I think the Catholic Church simply holds that it is canonical because it is divine and true. Lamm is asking not if some book has been accepted in some way by some church but does it specifically, clearly point to one person: JESUS.




.

Daniel 9 clearly prophesies about the coming Messiah.
Daniel 8 prophesies about the Maccabees.

Maybe the question we SHOULD be asking is, “Why is one important and the other isn’t?”

 

[Josiah]

Nathan



Thank you.

Like I said,

There is ZERO evidence that this individual had OLDER and "original" Hebrew manuscripts than were unavailable in his day.

There is ZERO evidence of anything in what he calls "accurate" Hebrew texts because he never once quotes them (or even suggests he could read them if he had them).

There is ZERO evidence that he was fluent in ancient Hebrew.

He SAYS there's some difference but he gives ZERO evidence of that, not one Hebrew text is quoted. For anything.

He shares NOTHING Hebrew.... He doesn't indicate he can read Hebrew..... He offers no side-by-side comparisons of anything.

He says "definitately established" and "clearly" but doesn't say where or by whom or offer ANY evidence of such.

And he is one person, not all the church. I think you said "the early church" not one person. The Early Church is not one person.


Brother,

I remain at a loss as to why some (as yet unidentified books) are fully and equally canonical to other (as yet unidentified) books... how this substantiates that there was (on some date, at some place) a binding, definitive, authoritative meeting of the Ruling Body of all Christianity - a PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIAN, ECUMENICAL meeting (and you are docilicly submissive to all such) that declared that the books you haven't identified are The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Let's pretend everything this one man says (not a word of it substantiated) is true.... how does that prove this meeting you keep insisting upon happened and did as you state?

Friend, let's pretend you are right, and this SINGLE person alone had ancient, lost Hebrew manuscripts that were accurate unlike what everyone else had in 400AD. And that, being fluent in Hebrew, he saw how those ancient manuscripts were different than the ones everyone else had. Okay. How does that prove that some books you haven't identified are THUS, ERGO the inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? Could you please answer that? What does that have to do with "the apocrypha?"





.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Thank you.

Like I said,

There is ZERO evidence that this individual had OLDER and "original" Hebrew manuscripts than were unavailable in his day.

There is ZERO evidence of anything in what he calls "accurate" Hebrew texts because he never once quotes them (or even suggests he could read them if he had them).

There is ZERO evidence that he was fluent in ancient Hebrew.

He SAYS there's some difference but he gives ZERO evidence of that, not one Hebrew text is quoted. For anything.

He says "definitately established" and "clearly" but doesn't say where or by whom or offer ANY evidence of such. Lots of circular reasoning.

And he is one person, not all the church. I think you said "the early church" not one person

And I remain at a loss as to why some (as yet unidentified books) are fully and equally canonical to other (as yet unidentified) books... how this substantiates that there was (on some date, at some place) a binding, definitive, authoritative meeting of the Ruling Body of all Christianity - a PAN CHRISTIAN, ALL CHRISTIAN, ECUMENICAL meeting (and you are docilicly submissive to all such) that declared that the books you haven't identified are The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.



.

I don’t think Eusebius is claiming to have access to older, accurate Hebrew texts. But rather, he’s claiming that the church in his time BELIEVED that the Septuagint was translated from older, accurate Hebrew texts. That’s why he defends the Septuagint’s inclusion of the extra 650 years in Genesis 11.

Eusebius attended the council of Nicaea, which had hundreds of church fathers from all over Asia, Africa, and Europe. He probably had a pretty good grasp on what the early church fathers believed at that time. He’s saying they all trusted the Septuagint, and distrusted the Hebrew text of their time.

This claim is also backed up by Justin Martyr, who also claimed in the 2nd century, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, that the Jewish leaders deleted things out of their Hebrew texts -things which the Septuagint preserves. Justin lists examples of things he believed the Jews had deleted.

Even Josephus says something that backs up Eusebius. Josephus claims that the Hebrew text he possessed in the 1st century included the 650 years that Eusebius claims the Jews deleted. Josephus had been given the Hebrew scrolls from the temple in Jerusalem.

This is all very compelling evidence suggesting that the Hebrew text of today might be missing things that the Greek Septuagint preserves.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

One thing that really stands out to me about the apocrypha is this:

I could never understand Daniel 8. Even after 20 years of attending church events regularly, and reading through the Bible multiple times, and I’ve still never understood Daniel 8.

But one day I watched a bunch of documentaries about Alexander the Great. Documentaries from PBS, BBC, History Channel, etc.

Then I went back and re-read Daniel 8, and suddenly the chapter came ALIVE! I could finally understand it. I realized that it’s prophesying about what I had just learned about in these documentaries.

Daniel 8 was prophetically speaking of Alexander defeating the Persians, dying at a young age, and then his kingdom being split up among his 4 generals who became kings themselves, and split up the Greek empire among themselves.

But I didn’t understand why it took so long for me to understand this chapter. After all, why should I have to read a SECULAR history book, or watch a secular documentary from PBS and the History Channel in order to understand BIBLICAL history?

Shouldn’t this history be in the Bible?

Something about that just didn’t make sense to me. I mean, surely if there was a book of the Bible containing this history, then certainly I would have been able to pick up on what Daniel 8 was prophesying about much sooner. I shouldn’t have had to go for over 20 years being completely clueless about this.

Something in my spirit just really felt like this history really should have been in our Bibles. I should not have had to go for this long not being able to understand these prophesies.

Well, later on after this, I decided to read the books of the Maccabees because I wanted to understand the holiday that Jesus celebrated in John 10:22. I hadn’t read either of the Maccabees yet at this point in time.

I started in 1 Maccabees chapter 1. And I found that the very first chapter contains the very historical information that Daniel 8 prophesies about. This chapter mentions Alexander being the son of Phillip, king of Macedon, then becoming king of the Greeks, defeating the Persians in battle, becoming prideful and dying at a young age, and then his kingdom being divided among his 4 generals.

I couldn’t believe it!

Here I was JUST thinking that there should be a book in the Bible containing this history. And then I come to find out…there IS a book of the Bible containing this history!! It’s been there all along! I just never bothered to read it, because the version of the Bible that I used didn’t contain Maccabees.

Now, if I was a Christian living in the 1600’s or 1700’s, and I was reading the KJV, then I’d have the Apocryphal section in my Bible (the section wasn’t taken out until the late 1800’s). Plus, I’d also have marginal notes in Daniel 8 pointing me to Maccabees.

But no, I was a kid in the 1990’s reading the NIV, which contained no Apocryphal section, and had no marginal notes in Daniel 8 pointing to Maccabees. And as a result, I’ve been clueless about that chapter for a very long time, regardless of the fact that I’ve been reading through the Bible multiple times, and been involved in tons of church and ministry events over the past 20 years.

So in order to address the original question:

How does the apocrypha point someone to Christ?

I’m not exactly sure.

But honestly, I think there’s lots of things in the Old Testament, which I don’t exactly know how they point someone to Christ.

How does the story of Nehemiah rebuilding the wall point someone to Christ? I don’t know. But I know the Bible is incomplete without it.

How does the story of Esther point someone to Christ? I don’t exactly know. But it’s an amazing story and I love it. And the Bible is incomplete without it. Maybe someone else can draw some parallels or find some symbolism in Esther, and come up with an explanation about how Esther points to Christ.

How does Daniel 8 point someone to Christ? I don’t know. But I’d like to know its fulfillment. And I don’t think the Bible is complete without containing that history which fulfills it.

But even though I don’t know how Daniel 8 points someone to Christ, I DO know how Daniel 9 points to Christ, since it prophesies about the 70 weeks and the exact timing of when the Messiah is supposed to show up.

Should we only study Daniel 9, and the prophecy of the 70 weeks because that’s what points to Christ, but fail to study Daniel 8 just because it doesn’t point directly to Christ? I don’t think so. I want a full, complete Bible, regardless of how much a chapter does or does not point directly to Christ.

I hope that answers your question.

Here's a different topic that may interest you. The expertise is copied from Jacob Michael, who I believe is a linguistics expert. His site was Papal Power Authority
Sorry, don't know if it still works--copied this some years ago. He was interested in the significance of the Lord Jesus changing Simon's name to Cephas/Kephas (rock). This is what he wrote:

"Kepha is etymologically connected to the Greek word kephala, which means 'head,' as in Ephesians 5:23: 'Christ is the head of the Church.' We see this usage in our English words 'encephalogram' which is a type of xray of the head; and in 'autocephalous,' which is a type of church that leads itself. The Greeks probably used similar words for "rock" and "head" because the skull is hard and, face down, can resemble a rock. Kephas is spelled kappa, eta, phi, alpha, sigma while Kephala is kappa epsilon, phi, alpha, lambda, eta. Interestingly, Caiaphas, the head and high priest of Judaism at the time, also means 'rock.'"

God, Who is ultimately the author even of human languages, arranged for the Greek word kephas to have this meaning of "rock" and connotation of "head" that is often lost in modern discussions. But you can see how starkly Caiaphas (rock, and earthly head of the old covenant religion) and Cephas (rock and earthly head of the New Covenant Church) would have contrasted in the minds of the Apostles.

That this primacy of Peter is not a later Catholic invention can be seen by Eusebius' historical account of the martyr St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the Apostle St. John, traveling to Rome to meet with Pope Anicetus, to confer about the date of Easter while St. John was still alive in Ephesus. (Here's the historical background: The Church at Rome and at Alexandria celebrated Easter on a Sunday, while the churches in the East celebrated Easter on the 14th of Aviv/Abib, no matter what day of the week that was.) St. Polycarp and Pope Anicetus agreed that each church should follow the customs of the bishops that had preceded them.

But in 193 A.D., Pope Victor wanted to excommunicate all the churches in the East that did not celebrate the Lord's Resurrection on Easter Sunday. However, other bishops talked him out of it. So you see, the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged as having the office of primacy from the earliest days of the Church. No one questioned his authority to excommunicate.

The office of bishop did not die with the Apostles. "Let his office another take," (Acts 1:20) the Apostles said, when they chose someone to take Judas' place. 1Timothy 3:7 also mentions "the office of bishop." St. Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus, and was ordained by the "laying on of hands of the presbyterate." (1Tim 4:14) and of St. Paul (2 Tim 1:6). St. Paul also wrote to Titus to "appoint elders in every city. Titus 1:5, and overseers Titus 1:7. I'm telling you this because some in this thread have said there's no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles ordained successors.

I refer you again to Isaiah 22: 20-24. Just as King David had a royal steward who acted with his authority in his stead, so does the Messianic Son of David fulfill every foreshadowing of Him in the Old Testament by authorizing one "high priest" to teach and govern as He did, in His place.

Do you know why Popes use what English calls "the majestic plural"? Check Matthew 17:27 in the Orthodox Study Bible (because protestant Bibles mistranslate this). You will see Jesus used "we" for Himself and Peter, the only time in the Bible where God uses "we" for Himself and a man.You see St. Peter using "we" in 2Peter1:19, when he is assuring the reader that his prophesy is "more sure."

Here are some items you may want to consider: Hebrew 13:10 says "We have an altar from which those who serve the Temple have no right to eat." It is my understanding that protestant churches got rid of their altars. Luther said the Catholic holy Mass "stinks of sacrifice." Yet St. Paul says he is "ministering as a priest" (Romans 15:16). For "priest" he uses "hierus," which means "a sacrificing priest." Some questions: Why does St. Paul write in Hebrews 2:9 "But we do see Him..."? and "Hebrew 10:29 "...trampled the Son of God underfoot"? Are these just figures of speech?

Thanks for reading.

 

[Josiah]

No, I’m not Catholic.
Never have been. Never will be.

Curious..... since you insist that WE be docilicly submissive to decisions of the Latin Church, to bishops submissive to the one in Rome, you illustrate with 3 such meetings. You insist that its councils are authoritative an binding upon us. But not you? You don't? SInce you demand that WE be docilicly submissive to Councils of the Latin Church and bishops under the Pope in Rome.. that such meetings are all authoritative and infallible... why don't you do that? Why aren't you Catholic? A Catholic IS one who is submissive to bishops under the Pope, to decisions of the Latin Church.

Odd. Oh well.

Back to the issue



.

 

[NathanH83]

Curious..... since you insist that WE be docilicly submissive to decisions of the Latin Church, to bishops submissive to the one in Rome, you illustrate with 3 such meetings. You insist that its councils are authoritative an binding upon us. But not you? You don't? SInce you demand that WE be docilicly submissive to Councils of the Latin Church and bishops under the Pope in Rome.. that such meetings are all authoritative and infallible... why don't you do that? Why aren't you Catholic? A Catholic IS one who is submissive to bishops under the Pope, to decisions of the Latin Church.

Odd. Oh well.

Back to the issue



.

Good question!
Thanks for asking.

I think there is a HUGE difference between the Catholic Church of the 1500’s, and the Catholic church from 1,000 years earlier in the 300’s.

These early church councils in the 4th century decided our New Testament. Why shouldn’t they also decide our Old Testament.

Don’t most of us Protestants agree with the Nicene Creed? Wasn’t the council of Nicaea a Catholic council with Pope Damascus overseeing it?

These church fathers in 325 AD had just come out of intense persecution, since Christianity had just recently been legalized in 313 AD. Many of them had marks from being whipped, some had a missing eye, even missing arms and legs for some of them due to persecution and beatings.

These were REAL Christians who risked their life and safety for the gospel.

So yes, I WILL take a 4th century council seriously.

As for the greedy Catholic church of the 1500’s?

NOT INTERESTED!

 

[NathanH83]

Here's a different topic that may interest you. The expertise is copied from Jacob Michael, who I believe is a linguistics expert. His site was Papal Power Authority
Sorry, don't know if it still works--copied this some years ago. He was interested in the significance of the Lord Jesus changing Simon's name to Cephas/Kephas (rock). This is what he wrote:

"Kepha is etymologically connected to the Greek word kephala, which means 'head,' as in Ephesians 5:23: 'Christ is the head of the Church.' We see this usage in our English words 'encephalogram' which is a type of xray of the head; and in 'autocephalous,' which is a type of church that leads itself. The Greeks probably used similar words for "rock" and "head" because the skull is hard and, face down, can resemble a rock. Kephas is spelled kappa, eta, phi, alpha, sigma while Kephala is kappa epsilon, phi, alpha, lambda, eta. Interestingly, Caiaphas, the head and high priest of Judaism at the time, also means 'rock.'"

God, Who is ultimately the author even of human languages, arranged for the Greek word kephas to have this meaning of "rock" and connotation of "head" that is often lost in modern discussions. But you can see how starkly Caiaphas (rock, and earthly head of the old covenant religion) and Cephas (rock and earthly head of the New Covenant Church) would have contrasted in the minds of the Apostles.

That this primacy of Peter is not a later Catholic invention can be seen by Eusebius' historical account of the martyr St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the Apostle St. John, traveling to Rome to meet with Pope Anicetus, to confer about the date of Easter while St. John was still alive in Ephesus. (Here's the historical background: The Church at Rome and at Alexandria celebrated Easter on a Sunday, while the churches in the East celebrated Easter on the 14th of Aviv/Abib, no matter what day of the week that was.) St. Polycarp and Pope Anicetus agreed that each church should follow the customs of the bishops that had preceded them.

But in 193 A.D., Pope Victor wanted to excommunicate all the churches in the East that did not celebrate the Lord's Resurrection on Easter Sunday. However, other bishops talked him out of it. So you see, the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged as having the office of primacy from the earliest days of the Church. No one questioned his authority to excommunicate.

The office of bishop did not die with the Apostles. "Let his office another take," (Acts 1:20) the Apostles said, when they chose someone to take Judas' place. 1Timothy 3:7 also mentions "the office of bishop." St. Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus, and was ordained by the "laying on of hands of the presbyterate." (1Tim 4:14) and of St. Paul (2 Tim 1:6). St. Paul also wrote to Titus to "appoint elders in every city. Titus 1:5, and overseers Titus 1:7. I'm telling you this because some in this thread have said there's no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles ordained successors.

I refer you again to Isaiah 22: 20-24. Just as King David had a royal steward who acted with his authority in his stead, so does the Messianic Son of David fulfill every foreshadowing of Him in the Old Testament by authorizing one "high priest" to teach and govern as He did, in His place.

Do you know why Popes use what English calls "the majestic plural"? Check Matthew 17:27 in the Orthodox Study Bible (because protestant Bibles mistranslate this). You will see Jesus used "we" for Himself and Peter, the only time in the Bible where God uses "we" for Himself and a man.You see St. Peter using "we" in 2Peter1:19, when he is assuring the reader that his prophesy is "more sure."

Here are some items you may want to consider: Hebrew 13:10 says "We have an altar from which those who serve the Temple have no right to eat." It is my understanding that protestant churches got rid of their altars. Luther said the Catholic holy Mass "stinks of sacrifice." Yet St. Paul says he is "ministering as a priest" (Romans 15:16). For "priest" he uses "hierus," which means "a sacrificing priest." Some questions: Why does St. Paul write in Hebrews 2:9 "But we do see Him..."? and "Hebrew 10:29 "...trampled the Son of God underfoot"? Are these just figures of speech?

Thanks for reading.

Wow. That’s a lot.
Not exactly related to the topic of this thread.
I don’t really get into Catholic apologetics. But I might check it out.
Thanks.

 

[Josiah]

Daniel 9 clearly prophesies about the coming Messiah.
Daniel 8 prophesies about the Maccabees.

Perhaps.... but that has NOTHING to do with ANY book ergo being authoritatively declared by all Christianity as The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

And nothing to do with some guy in the year 400 having some ancient Hebrew manuscript unknown to anyone else at this time or since that proves such a meeting happened.

Or why you want US to be docilicly submissive to all councils of the Latin Church and bishops in submission to the Pope, but you aren't.


Now, brother, if you DESIRE to read ANY BOOK that is informative, inspirational and transformational for you, then no one here (or likely anywhere on the Planet Earth) is forbidding you to do so.... indeed, I personally would very likely encourage it. But as for your dogmatic claims and demands, that I find baseless and often wrong.




.

 

[Josiah]

Don’t most of us Protestants agree with the Nicene Creed?

1. This was from the First Ecumenical Council..... to which ALL bishops were invited and many of which participated (in line with the Bishop of Rome or not). Yes, some Protestant denominations acknowledge 3 to 7 of The ECUMENICAL Councils. The Pan Christian Councils. But you reference NONE of the Ecumenical Councils, you reference 3 obscure, tiny, local meetings of a diocese.... LATIN ones at which there was one bishop, in each case submissive to the Bishop in Rome. Apples and Oranges. Not even the singular RCC considers the 3 meetings you mention to be Ecumenical. Indeed, most of the participating bishops were NOT Latin or western. I know of NO Protestant who claims to be submissive to all Latin Councils of bishops submissive to the Pope. Neither the RCC or any of the Eastern Orthodox churches consider the 3 local Latin councils you mention to be Ecumenical.

2. The Bishop of Rome never attended a single meeting of the First Ecumenical Council. He did send a lowly DEACON (not even a priest) but he himself chose not to partcipate.

Wasn’t the council of Nicaea a Catholic council with Pope Damascus overseeing it?

Nope. Wrong.

It was an ECUMENICAL Council, the First of Seven. The Bishop of Rome entirely excluded himself from it, he never attended a single session. He did send a lowly deacon (not even a priest), well actually two of them, but he himself stayed away. This was not a Latin, Western, papal meeting... it was one of the 7 ECUMENICAL Councils. But as you know, NONE of those ever said a word about the canon. We all know that.

You demand that we docilicly submit to 3 LATIN Councils, each with a single LATIN Bishop, each in submission to the Bishop of Rome. But of course, you don't submit to such councils.




.

 

[Origen]

There is ZERO evidence that this individual had OLDER and "original" Hebrew manuscripts than were unavailable in his day.

There is ZERO evidence of anything in what he calls "accurate" Hebrew texts because he never once quotes them (or even suggests he could read them if he had them).

There is ZERO evidence that he was fluent in ancient Hebrew.

He SAYS there's some difference but he gives ZERO evidence of that, not one Hebrew text is quoted. For anything.

He shares NOTHING Hebrew.... He doesn't indicate he can read Hebrew..... He offers no side-by-side comparisons of anything.

He says "definitately established" and "clearly" but doesn't say where or by whom or offer ANY evidence of such.

Correct on all points.

And he is one person, not all the church. I think you said "the early church" not one person. The Early Church is not one person.

EXCELLENT POINT! Augustine, for example, has a much more reasonable and sane view of the matter.

“However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, though envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error."

"Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended." City of God, book 15, chapeter 13)

First, Augustine rejects the idea it was the Jews who changed the text. He makes it clear that such a claim is simply not credible. Second, according to Augustine these difference came about because of scribal errors.

 

[NathanH83]

1. This was from the First Ecumenical Council..... to which ALL bishops (in line with the Bishop of Rome or not). Yes, some Protestant denominations acknowledge 3 to 7 of The Ecumenical Councils. The Pan Christian Councils. But you reference NONE of the Ecumenical Councils, you reference 3 obscure, tiny, local meetings of a diocese.... LATIN ones at which there was one bishop, in each case submissive to the Bishop in Rome. Apples and Oranges. Not even the singular RCC considers the 3 meetings you mention to be Ecumenical. I know of NO Protestant who claims to be submissive to call Latin Councils of bishops submissive to the Pope (not even you).

Latin ones?
Ok, well the eastern GREEK Orthodox also accept the books of the Maccabees.
What’s your point?

Why don’t we get back to the original question?
How to Apocryphal books point to Christ?
Like The ones in the King James.
Any ideas?

 

[NathanH83]

Correct on all points.



EXCELLENT POINT! Augustine, for example, has a much more reasonable and sane view of the matter.

“However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, though envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error."

"Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended." City of God, book 15, chapeter 13)

First, Augustine rejects the idea it was the Jews who changed the text. He makes it clear that such a claim is simply not credible. Second, according to Augustine these difference came about because of scribal errors.

And yet, Josephus says that his Hebrew text included the extra 100 years on 6 generations.