Early Christian writings along with the NT...

Have you found a number of almond blossoms on a mountain..?

I found a number of judges that constitute a number of hebrew consonants.

Blessings Always

Origen said:

The word means "dog."

View attachment 1331Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, pp. 476-477


View attachment 1332Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol 1, p. 439

View attachment 1333
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol 2, p. 476


View attachment 1334
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 4, p. 415


View attachment 1335
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol.2 p. 632.

Click to expand...

Also known as the egyptian worship of anubis.
So from an exegetical point I'm of the opinion that Yeshua referring to dogs is pointing perhaps to the womans possible egyptian/greek heritage.

And her response was an indication of her knowledge of anubis.
Yet never having a worship of anything greco egyptian.

Exodus 11:7
Isaiah 13:22

Andrew said:

I agree it can also refer to a backslider, once loyal but then untamed, that makes since too, backsliders are also kept outside the Kingdom

Click to expand...

כט שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵמָּה, מֵיטִיבֵי צָעַד; וְאַרְבָּעָה, מֵיטִבֵי לָכֶת.
29 There are three things which are stately in their march, yea, four which are stately in going:
ל לַיִשׁ, גִּבּוֹר בַּבְּהֵמָה; וְלֹא-יָשׁוּב, מִפְּנֵי-כֹל.
30 The lion, which is mightiest among beasts, and turneth not away for any;
לא זַרְזִיר מָתְנַיִם אוֹ-תָיִשׁ; וּמֶלֶךְ, אַלְקוּם עִמּוֹ.
31 The greyhound; the he-goat also; and the king, against whom there is no rising up.

Origen said:

The word means "dog."

View attachment 1331Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, pp. 476-477


View attachment 1332Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol 1, p. 439

View attachment 1333
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol 2, p. 476


View attachment 1334
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 4, p. 415


View attachment 1335
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol.2 p. 632.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that the English use of dog is incomparable to the hebrew keleb.
A mistranslation?

Andrew said:

...seem to point to the Septuagint as a more accurate and proper vorlage of an earlier original Hebrew text in opposition to the common Masoretic Hebrew text used today in most modern bibles..

Knowing that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was the first ever assembly and establishment in regards to Hebrew canon (for unknown reasons by unbelieving Jewish high priests) leads me to believe without a doubt that God intended a translation for the gentiles and Jews of that era, meaning that the "canon" was settled by God through the Septuagint and every book it included -as inspired and not to be neglected.

How does one counter these facts to the contrary?

Why do protestants follow the tradition of the RCC with Jerome's advice from the unbelieving Jews he studied under -that certain books in the Septuagint were neither of any importance nor were they translated correctly..?

Click to expand...

Hebrew is a raisin sword with a scabbard of husk.

Name the 6 husk and I'll show the scabbard .
You've alot to learn youngin.

pinacled said:

Hebrew is a raisin sword with a scabbard of husk.

Name the 6 husk and I'll show the scabbard .
You've alot to learn youngin.

Click to expand...

Song of Solomon 1:5
Sheer and benign

Andrew said:

The proof is in the translation which combined both proto masoretic and the LXX.
David Bercot points the instances out in his lectures, he's well studied in early Christianity and early church writers.
Here is his audio lecture on Jerome, you can find the other parts on the same channel.

Click to expand...

I like David Bercot and have no doubt he believes what he says but that is not hard evidence. I am not going to take the word of someone without evidence. Moreover nothing he says contradict any of the points I made.

Let me remind you (see post 283).
You stated: "The LXX was composed of several versions of the Septuagint, one of which was likely Aquilas version"

I replied: "We have no LXX complete or near complete manuscripts before the 4th century A.D. And the ones we do have are Christian. There are only a few fragments that predate the 4th century A.D. Moreover the manuscripts and codices of the Septuagint are not uniformed. No two are exactly alike. They all differ in some way."

You stated: "Jerome later would switch around verses from Origins composition with the prot-Masoretic which also differs in a few areas from the Christian Masoretic"

I replied: "Please point to the manuscript evidence which supports that claim. Please provide a quote and the sources where Jerome states that is what he did."

So again I says:
Please point to the manuscript evidence which supports that claim.
Please provide a quote and the sources where Jerome states that is what he did.

Andrew said:

I don't have Jerome's writings handy, I still don't know what to make of "out of Egypt" being wrong in the lxx, I do know that Jerome doesn't always side with the hebrew, rabbis point that out all of the time, when it differs it's almost always found in the LXX

Click to expand...

Let's consider another case then. Do you consider Isaiah 9:6 messianic?

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

Andrew said:

Yeah my Brenton has a note "Alex. +" meaning its from the Alexandrian text with additions "wonderful counsellor, mighty one..."

Click to expand...

Excellent! That note tells you that not all LXX manuscripts read alike. That means, just as I said in post 309:

"The manuscripts and codices of the Septuagint are not uniformed. No two are exactly alike. They all differ in some way."

Nevertheless Brenton translated the verse this way:
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

Thus LXX translators mangled this clearly messianic passage.

Also note I will check what Alexandrinus does have. I have found instances where the notes in Brenton are wrong.

It seems that the early Christian writers nearest to the time of Christ's resurrection and the start of the Christian church though not with the authority on things from God as what is in the new testament, and the old testament, of the Bible, are of significant value in better understanding of some things in the Bible especially in the new testament that are otherwise a bit dubious to readers now, with some concluding different things than others. Like what? What is to be understood about a table of demons? It's not clear from the new testament, with anything in the context. But if one uses other early Christian writing close to the same time, Clement's writing would be seen and would throw a lot of light on that.

Early Christians have a testimony which should not be dismissed. Such might not be considered, so it would be appropriate to share what is yet found from very early Christian writers nearest to the time of Christ's resurrection and the start of the Christian church.

Here is an excerpt from Clement of Alexandria, Book 2, Chapter 1:

God has provided for His creature (man I mean) food and drink, for sustenance, not for pleasure; since the body derives no advantage from extravagance in viands. For, quite the contrary, those who use the most frugal fare are the strongest and the healthiest, and the noblest; as domestics are healthier and stronger than their masters, and husbandmen than the proprietors; and not only more robust, but wiser, as philosophers are wiser than rich men. For they have not buried the mind beneath food, nor deceived it with pleasures. But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. "It beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things. Love never faileth." "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which faileth not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. And do you imagine that I am thinking of a supper that is to be done away with? "For if," it is said, "I bestow all my goods, and have not love, I am nothing." On this love alone depend the law and the Word; and if "thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour," this is the celestial festival in the heavens. But the earthly is called a supper, as has been shown from Scripture. For the supper is made for love, but the supper is not love (agape); only a proof of mutual and reciprocal kindly feeling. "Let not, then, your good be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," says the apostle, in order that the meal spoken of may not be conceived as ephemeral, "but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." He who eats of this meal, the best of all, shall possess the kingdom of God, fixing his regards here on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly Church. Love, then, is something pure and worthy of God, and its work is communication. "And the care of discipline is love," as Wisdom says; "and love is the keeping of the law." And these joys have an inspiration of love from the public nutriment, which accustoms to everlasting dainties. Love (agape), then, is not a supper. But let the entertainment depend on love. For it is said, "Let the children whom Thou hast loved, O Lord, learn that it is not the products of fruits that nourish man; but it is Thy word which preserves those who believe on Thee." "For the righteous shall not live by bread." But let our diet be light and digestible, and suitable for keeping awake, unmixed with diverse varieties. Nor is this a point which is beyond the sphere of discipline. For love is a good nurse for communication; having as its rich provision sufficiency, which, presiding over diet measured in due quantity, and treating the body in a healthful way, distributes something from its resources to those near us, But the diet which exceeds sufficiency injures a man, deteriorates his spirit, and renders his body prone to disease. Besides, those dainty tastes, which trouble themselves about rich dishes drive to practices of ill-repute, daintiness, gluttony, greed, voracity, insatiability. Appropriate designations of such people as so indulge are flies, weasels, flatterers, gladiators, and the monstrous tribes of parasites--the one class surrendering reason, the other friendship, and the other life, for the gratification of the belly; crawling on their bellies, beasts in human shape after the image of their father, the voracious beast. People first called the abandoned aswtous, and so appear to me to indicate their end, understanding them as those who are (aswsous) unsaved, excluding the S. For those that are absorbed in pots, and exquisitely prepared niceties of condiments, are they not plainly abject, earth-born, leading an ephemeral kind of life, as if they were not to live [hereafter]? Those the Holy Spirit, by Isaiah, denounces as wretched, depriving them tacitly of the name of love (agape), since their feasting was not in accordance with the word. "But they made mirth, killing calves, and sacrificing sheep, saying, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." And that He reckons such luxury to be sin, is shown by what He adds, "And your sin shall not be forgiven you till you die," --not conveying the idea that death, which deprives of sensation, is the forgiveness of sin, but meaning that death of salvation which is the recompense of sin. "Take no pleasure in abominable delicacies," says Wisdom. At this point, too, we have to advert to what are called things sacrificed to idols, in order to show how we are enjoined to abstain from them. Polluted and abominable those things seem to me, to the blood of which, fly "Souls from Erebus of inanimate corpses."

"For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate. We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God." "For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth." The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better," it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse." But it is inconsistent with reason, for those that have been made worthy to share divine and spiritual food, to partake of the tables of demons. "Have we not power to eat and to drink," says the apostle, "and to lead about wives"? But by keeping pleasures under command we prevent lusts. See, then, that this power of yours never "become a stumbling-block to the weak."

For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts; but we should use them, without undue attachment to them, as having command over ourselves. For we are enjoined to reign and rule over meats, not to be slaves to them. It is an admirable thing, therefore, to raise our eyes aloft to what is true, to depend on that divine food above, and to satiate ourselves with the exhaustless contemplation of that which truly exists, and so taste of the only sure and pure delight. For such is the agape, which, the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of. But totally irrational, futile, and not human is it for those that are of the earth, fattening themselves like cattle, to feed themselves up for death; looking downwards on the earth, and bending ever over tables; leading a life of gluttony; burying all the good of existence here in a life that by and by will end; courting voracity alone, in respect to which cooks are held in higher esteem than husbandmen. For we do not abolish social intercourse, but look with suspicion on the snares of custom, and regard them as a calamity. Wherefore daintiness is to be shunned, and we are to partake of few and necessary things. "And if one of the unbelievers call us to a feast, and we determine to go" (for it is a good thing not to mix with the dissolute), the apostle bids us "eat what is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake." Similarly he has enjoined to purchase "what is sold in the shambles," without curious questioning?

We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little destined to perish. "Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth." And a little way on he explains the reason of the command, when he says, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." So that the right food is thanksgiving. And he who gives thanks does not occupy his time in pleasures. And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint.