Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[NathanH83]

First, provide a primary source where it states clearly that Melito was Jewish.

Second, still no objective evidence he "favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint."

Third, here we go again. Another example of pure speculation coupled with the association fallacy.

I’m not speculating that Melito’s list is missing Esther.

I read Wikipedia which said that Melito was Jewish. If you think that’s wrong, then prove it.

 

[NathanH83]

"But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scripture for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books — those called apocryphal— led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church"

"There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings"

-----------


Athanasius, agreeing with Rufinus, agreeing with Origen, list two classes of tradition in the OT, one being "Canon" according to Jewish Canon (established post 33AD) for witnessing [Since Jews had settled a canon rejecting certain books, it would be superfluous to use the rejected books to witness unto them]

The second class is for NEW CONVERTS for instruction, the books listed are once again NOT apocryphal but the correct term as mentioned before by Rufinus is "Ecclesiastical".

Keep in mind that the bulk of these books are of Jewish origins, written by and reproduced by Jews BEFORE the term "Canon" was ever made use of regarding Scripture.

The (true) Apocrypha are heretical and forbidden to be read by Christians in the Church, again these are the false attributions to the Apostles which teach a different gospel (no gospel at all), from these books come the Gnostic teaching that Christ did not die on the cross but rather another man was hung on the cross instead, Muhammad unfamiliar with true Christianity adopted these heretical gospels into the Quran where you find a talking baby Jesus and a God who caused a delusion over the Jews to convince them that they killed Jesus when according to the Quran and the Gnostic teachings, he did NOT die.
THIS is what Paul warned about was so dangerous, NOT the so-called "Apocrypha" that Christians had in their Holy Bibles up until 1816 AD but these HERETICAL books/doctrines.

Jerome made the mistake of believing the unbelieving Jews to call the traditional Ecclesiastical books "Apocrypha" when this was never the case.

SCRIPTURE in the Church is DIVINE whether it's OT canon (according to the Jews) OR Ecclesiastical (books the Jews rejected as canonical post 33AD)

How do we know that the Ecclesiastical books were divine Scripture? Because the vast majority of early church fathers called them divine over and over again in their writings.

And also because we know that the Jews removed things from the Hebrew, which the Greek Septuagint preserves. The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books. The unbelieving Jews who lived after the time of Christ rejected them.

 

[NathanH83]

You make a lot of false claims against me. Let's get back to HOW the apocryphal books don't point to Jesus as Savior because that's the real reason I don't read them a lot. Yes, I've read some of the books and it was part of a bible study I did at my previous church. It was an intense 2 year study going through the OT, NT and apocryphal books. We had tests, memorized verses and pictures and everything taught in the class was meant to point the way to Jesus as Savior. That's the entire point of the pastor's job. That's how souls are saved.

I love ALL the books of the Bible. Even the ones that don’t have the clear, undeniable, Messianic prophecies that point to Christ.

What Messianic prophecies in Esther point to Christ? I don’t know. But it’s a real account of how God in his sovereignty listened to the prayers of his people and delivered them.

Tobit is about how God listened to the prayers of his people who were in captivity and healed them.

Maccabees is about how God enabled the Maccabean warriors to defeat the Greeks and restore the temple sacrifices after being defiled.

I love ALL the books of the Bible.

I love the story of Daniel in the lions den, of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. I love the story of Joseph. I love the story of Ruth.

Just because I cannot point to direct Messianic prophecies pointing directly to Christ in every single book of the Bible, that doesn’t mean I belittle them, and undermine their value. I see value in them. They’re about God’s relationship with His people.

The story of Joseph paints a really good picture of Christ, in so many ways.

I really don’t understand why you want to try and paint the apocryphal books in a bad light, and say that they don’t point to Christ, but all the books of the Old Testament do. What?

Does the story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib point to Christ? It seems to me that it’s about how the people cried out to God and he delivered them from a wicked king. Maybe it points to Christ, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe you can find some symbolism in it that points to Christ.

Maybe the early church found symbolism in the book of Tobit that they believed pointed to Christ. Jesus found symbolism in the book of Jonah that pointed to him.

Did Jesus also see symbolism in the Feast of Dedication that pointed to him also? Maybe.

I really don’t get what you’re getting at.

 

[Origen]

I’m not speculating that Melito’s list is missing Esther.

You are speculating as to why. You simply have no evidence.

I read Wikipedia which said that Melito was Jewish.

In other words you cannot provide a primary source where it states clearly that Melito was Jewish.

If you think that’s wrong, then prove it.

Not my job. It is your job to support your claim.

 

[Andrew]

And also because we know that the Jews removed things from the Hebrew, which the Greek Septuagint preserves. The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books. The unbelieving Jews who lived after the time of Christ rejected them.

Exactly my point, this is also evident in the writings of the ECF of which the majority specifically call them Holy Scripture, Divine Scripture, Sacred Scripture, Word of God, Words of Lord Jesus, Fountains of the Word of God etc..

Even the Jewish Talmud quotes from the Wisdom books!

This word.. "Canon" has lost it's original meaning, the title "Deuterocanonical" was (in my honest guess) an effort to correct this misunderstanding.

Once the Jews created "canon" (conveniently for the first time ever just after Christianity began to spread), the church began to use their canon as the means in which to witness to them, the rejected books didn't die in the Church but played another role all together as instructions on Godly living to new converts, EQUALLY inspired.

Again this was later on during the Nicene era, and just before Jerome's deception

 

[Origen]

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

 

[Andrew]

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

Because the Jews wrote them?

 

[Origen]

Because the Jews wrote them?

Then cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

 

[Andrew]

I assume Maccabees would be rejected among Christians today because in the OT God never sent the Israelites out for battle...

 

[Andrew]

Then cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

LXX

 

[NathanH83]

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

Andrew already did. Jewish Talmud.
Also, the Greek Septuagint is pre-Christ.
Also, Dead Sea Scrolls, they pre-date Christ. Tobit and Sirach found in Hebrew among them. The author of Hebrews said that he accepted 2 Maccabees.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew already did. Jewish Talmud.
Also, the Greek Septuagint is pre-Christ.
Also, Dead Sea Scrolls, they pre-date Christ. Tobit and Sirach found in Hebrew among them. The author of Hebrews said that he accepted 2 Maccabees.

Technically you did not actually audibly hear him say that

 

[Origen]

Andrew already did. Jewish Talmud.

The Babylonian Talmud dates to 6th centuries A.D.

Also, the Greek Septuagint is pre-Christ.

We have no evidence any book of the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.

Also, Dead Sea Scrolls, they pre-date Christ. Tobit and Sirach found in Hebrew among them.

Irrelevant. We know at least some of them existed before the 1st century. That in no way prove they believe they were Scripture.

The author of Hebrews said that he accepted 2 Maccabees.

New Testament authors may quote a source without believing it to be Scripture. We have many exmaples.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

 

[Origen]

LXX

All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

 

[Andrew]

The Babylonian Talmud dates to 6th centuries A.D.


We have no evidence the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.


Irrelevant. We know at least some of them existed before the 1st century. That in no way prove they believe they were Scripture.


An New Testament author may quote a source without believing it to be Scripture. We have many exmaples.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

The so-called "apocryphal" books claim that they worship the God of Israel, the Bible makes the same claim, so prove to me without using the Bible itself that any Jew accepted any book of the Bible, and you can't just say "because Jews existed" unless I can claim that fact as evidence as well.

Remember, you said "before Christ", so go ahead and prove me that Jews accepted Genesis as Scripture before Christ (without using any Hebrew books)

 

[Andrew]

All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. and after.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

What are the earliest Hebrew text we have of Scripture that predates the 4th Century AD?

 

[Origen]

The so-called "apocryphal" books claim that they worship the God of Israel, the Bible makes the same claim, so prove to me without using the Bible itself that any Jew accepted any book of the Bible, and you can't just say "because Jews existed" unless I can claim that fact as evidence as well.

I see you cannot cite a source so you want to deflect attention to something else but it won't work. You have no primary source.

Remember, you said "before Christ", so go ahead and prove me that Jews accepted Genesis as Scripture before Christ (without using any Hebrew books)

No, it was Nathan who said "before the time of Christ."

In post 82 Nathan stated:

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books. The unbelieving Jews who lived after the time of Christ rejected them.

I was simply following his claim.

 

[Origen]

What are the earliest Hebrew text we have of Scripture that predates the 4th Century AD?

Trying to change the subject by deflect attention to something else.

 

[Andrew]

I see you cannot cite a source so you want to deflect attention to something else but it won't work. You have no primary source.


No, you said "before the time of Christ."

In post 82 you stated:

I was simply following your claim.

You quoted 2 different members, im only one member

 

[Origen]

You quoted 2 different members, im only one member

Sorry. I was pointing out it was Nathan who said "before the time of Christ" and that I was just following his claim. I fixed the above post.