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

[NathanH83]

Enough with video marketing.
Show your works.
Where and when did the fictional 2nd esdras mention a salvation to come?

2 Esdras 7:28-29 (KJV)

“For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life.”


Ezra lived about 400 years before Christ. So that’s a pretty amazing prophecy.

 

[Albion]

I think it's ridiculous how Protestants throw out these books using Martin Luther's views, or claim the Jews exclusively have the right Scriptures. You're going to follow one man's subjective feelings and personal preferences over centuries of acceptance of these books by the Church which was founded by Christ and which is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Well, Luther was recognized as the great Bible scholar of his day in northern Europe, so what became of the Apocrypha is not as inexplicable as you thought. More important, however, is the fact that the books of the Apocrypha had never been accepted as definitely inspired. They were in question from the very beginning, both with the Jews and then with the Christians.

The councils previously mentioned which canonized the Bible included these books only provisionally.

So that is one more reason why, when some or all of them were expelled during the 16th century by BOTH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES, that act was not as shocking or unorthodox as many people of today think.

 

[Andrew]

Well, Luther was recognized as the great Bible scholar of his day in northern Europe, so what became of the Apocrypha is not as inexplicable as you thought. More important, however, is the fact that the books of the Apocrypha had never been accepted as definitely inspired. They were in question from the very beginning, both with the Jews and then with the Christians.

The councils previously mentioned which canonized the Bible included these books only provisionally.

So that is one more reason why, when some or all of them were expelled during the 16th century by BOTH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES, that act was not as shocking or unorthodox as many people of today think.

They weren't accepted as definitely inspired?

"Some were" and "some weren't" but never was there hint of the slightest suggestion that "none weren't" indefinitely.

I say that carefully, and it appears that whatever books Jerome rejected 'were' the books that the Church say "were".. otherwise from whence hast thou heardeth of thou apocrypha?

Cite a protestant declaration of canon ever

 

[pinacled]

2 Esdras 7:28-29 (KJV)

“For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life.”


Ezra lived about 400 years before Christ. So that’s a pretty amazing prophecy.

Which is it?
400 bc
Or
100bc

 

[Andrew]

Josephus is a fraud

?

 

[pinacled]

?

The current pseudepigraphical prints altered and issued by printing firms.

 

[Andrew]

The current pseudepigraphical prints altered and issued by printing firms.

Google "bible society" if you are so concerned with printing firms

 

[pinacled]

Google "bible society" if you are so concerned with printing firms

I prefer the school master over warped minds

 

[pinacled]

Google "bible society" if you are so concerned with printing firms

Do you have any other apocrypha pointing to messiah?

 

[NathanH83]

Which is it?
400 bc
Or
100bc

I don’t know what you’re asking.
Are you asking when Ezra lived?
He lived during the Persian empire. I believe that’s about 400 or 500 years before Christ: correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[NathanH83]

Don't be fooled by this, people! This entire argument is flawed, and an astute observer can catch onto Nathan's error in the first few paragraphs. He ASSUMES without evidence (and DESPITE CONTRARY EVIDENCE) that the Apocryphal books were considered canonical inspired writings by the ancient Jews just because they are included at the end of the Septuagint. The truth is that the Jews NEVER considered the Apocryphal books as "inspired writings." This is verified by the ancient Jewish/Roman historian Josephus who lived around the time of Christ. Josephus is a Jewish observer who recorded the generally agreed upon sentiment of the Jews at his time and in the past. Despite this early contemporaneous EVIDENCE, Nathan rejects this and instead embraces the views of later church councils that were convened once heresy was mainstreamed in the church and the Catholic system was taking over. Nathan knows Josephus checkmates his views so he calls Josephus an "unbelieving Jew" who he thinks for some reason is revising history and is biased against the Apocrypha. Yet, Nathan never defends or proves these made-up ideas of his. The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus and is totally besides the point here. Unfortunately, Nathan venerates the teachings of David Bercot over the evidence. And he apparently has somehow come to the conclusion that in order to value to Septuagint, one has to accept the Apocrypha as inspired (even though the Jews and earliest Christians never did).

What did Josephus say, anyway?

 

[TonyC7]

What did Josephus say, anyway?

Josephus defined the number of books in the widely accepted Jewish inspired canon for the past several hundred years. He provides a count of books that is directly equivalent to the number of Christian Old Testament books when you account for the different ways the Jews reckon the books compared to Christians (they don't have "1st" and "2nd" etc). I am sure you know this already Nathan. You just choose to ignore it in order to advance your pet theory.

 

[NathanH83]

Josephus defined the number of books in the widely accepted Jewish inspired canon for the past several hundred years. He provides a count of books that is directly equivalent to the number of Christian Old Testament books when you account for the different ways the Jews reckon the books compared to Christians (they don't have "1st" and "2nd" etc). I am sure you know this already Nathan. You just choose to ignore it in order to advance your pet theory.

Can you provide the quote? And where it’s written? I’d like to read it for myself.

 

[TonyC7]

Can you provide the quote? And where it’s written? I’d like to read it for myself.

I don't actually believe you are unaware of it. Surely if you're as good at research as your are at being argumentative, you can find it yourself.

 

[NathanH83]

I don't actually believe you are unaware of it. Surely if you're as good at research as your are at being argumentative, you can find it yourself.

What about the fact that 80% to 90% of New Testament quotations of the Old Testament side with the Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Like Steven saying 75 people in Acts? That’s what the Septuagint says in Exodus 1:5 and Genesis 46:27. The Masoretic says 70.

Or how about the phrase “and recovery of sight from the blind” missing from Isaiah 61:1? Even JESUS himself sides with the Septuagint in Luke 4:8!

What about that???

 

[TonyC7]

What about the fact that 80% to 90% of New Testament quotations of the Old Testament side with the Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Like Steven saying 75 people in Acts? That’s what the Septuagint says in Exodus 1:5 and Genesis 46:27. The Masoretic says 70.

Or how about the phrase “and recovery of sight from the blind” missing from Isaiah 61:1? Even JESUS himself sides with the Septuagint in Luke 4:8!

What about that???

I fully agree that the Jewish community wanted to distance themselves from the Septuagint, as the Septuagint had become known as the "Christian's Bible." I agree they obscured and/or outright changed verses such as "they shall look upon me who they have pierced," which Christians were using apologetically to convert Jews. We have no disagreement there. However, they had no incentive to all of a sudden "do away with" the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus. The Apocrypha was not being used to refute unbelieving Jews and convert Jews to Christianity. That is the argument. The Jews prior to Christ and prior to Jamnia felt no different about the Apocryphal books than they felt post-Jamnia.

 

[NathanH83]

I fully agree that the Jewish community wanted to distance themselves from the Septuagint, as the Septuagint had become known as the "Christian's Bible." I agree they obscured and/or outright changed verses such as "they shall look upon me who they have pierced," which Christians were using apologetically to convert Jews. We have no disagreement there. However, they had no incentive to all of a sudden "do away with" the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus. The Apocrypha was not being used to refute unbelieving Jews and convert Jews to Christianity. That is the argument. The Jews prior to Christ and prior to Jamnia felt no different about the Apocryphal books than they felt post-Jamnia.

There are many Old Testament books that don’t speak about Jesus or contain prophecy. Should we rip those out too and throw them in the trash?

 

[pinacled]

I fully agree that the Jewish community wanted to distance themselves from the Septuagint, as the Septuagint had become known as the "Christian's Bible." I agree they obscured and/or outright changed verses such as "they shall look upon me who they have pierced," which Christians were using apologetically to convert Jews. We have no disagreement there. However, they had no incentive to all of a sudden "do away with" the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus. The Apocrypha was not being used to refute unbelieving Jews and convert Jews to Christianity. That is the argument. The Jews prior to Christ and prior to Jamnia felt no different about the Apocryphal books than they felt post-Jamnia.

Cloning thoughts lead to confusion

 

[TonyC7]

There are many Old Testament books that don’t speak about Jesus or contain prophecy. Should we rip those out too and throw them in the trash?

That is not the point I made. You missed it. The point was the Jews have no incentive to commit some conspiracy at Jamnia to remove the Apocrypha.

 

[NathanH83]

That is not the point I made. You missed it. The point was the Jews have no incentive to commit some conspiracy at Jamnia to remove the Apocrypha.

They had no incentive? Really? I can think of a perfectly sensible motive! You need to listen to David Bercot’s audio teaching.

Besides, the whole reason it’s called “Apocrypha” is because the Jews were hiding it. Well, why hide it? Sounds like they were embarrassed by something.

Basically, the Jews wanted to discredit the New Testament. So, they came up with the doctrine that in order for something to be scripture, there has to be prophets. But the succession of the prophets ended in the days of Ezra, with prophets like Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi, etc. So, since prophecy stopped at that time, then so did scripture.

This is a blatant rejection of the New Testament, which clearly says that Jesus is the prophet that Moses talked about, and that John the Baptist is the greatest of prophets. John the Beloved also prophesied, as well as Paul and many other disciples. Therefore, the New Testament can, in fact, be scripture.

But in order for the Jews to stick with their teaching that the prophets ended in Ezra's day, and therefore scirpture ended in Ezra's day (in order to discredit the New Testament), they had to also say that the Maccabees cannot be scripture, since it came after Ezra's day. Also, 1 Maccabees chapter 14 says they made Simon their high priest and leader "until a trustworthy prophet should arise" indicating that there IS a prophet "coming soon to a synagogue near you."

So, since the Jews who rejected the New Testament had to stick with their doctrine that they were using to discredit the New Testament, they had to also discredit the Maccabees as well. Why do you think the Jewish rabbis were hiding the Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees? That's what Jerome said, that they were hiding it. That's why he called it "Apocrypha" which means "hidden."

I'd be glad to give you the youtube links to David Bercot's message on the topic. He makes a very compelling case for it.

Here's David Bercot's audio messages on the apocrypha:

Part 1:

Part 2: