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

[Josiah]

you are making accusations that I suggest that they are not inspired because I did what the OP asked for,

Friend, you said it's apocrypha. By definition, that makes it non-canonical, non inspired. That was YOUR declaration, not my accusation.

the apocrypha books are canon so apocrypha books don't actually exists so this topic makes absolutely no sense to me"?

Andrew


What??

See posts 12 and 14. I don't understand how you argue that non-canonical books are canonical. Lost me, brother, explain how non-canonical books are thus canonical?

History and Etymology for apocrypha
borrowed from Medieval Latin, neuter plural (for scripta apocrypha "uncanonical writings") of Late Latin apocryphus "of doubtful authenticity, uncanonical,"

Apocrapha refers to ANY writing that is regarded as uncanonical, unauthentic, dubious, unreliable. It is sometimes used for sacred writings in any religion considered as such. YOU called these uncanonical, unauthentic, dubious, I ONLY noted that THEREFORE, since that is your stance, why are we to regard what they say? We have books I suspect you regard as NOT apocrypha or DEUTEROcanonical that quite significantly shows that Jesus fulfills prophecies. IMO. Do you agree?

Just answer the question.

I did. See post 12. Did you read it?

I don't see these as definite prophecies of Jesus but they could be. But since you reject all three of these writings, why look to THESE when we have so many very good ones from books you (likely) consider not as apocrypha or even deuterocanonical? That was my question (you didn't answer). It makes more sense to me to look to writings you view as valid for prophecies than ones you don't. It seems to me.




.

 

[Andrew]

Friend, you said it's apocrypha. By definition, that makes it non-canonical, non inspired. That was YOUR declaration, not my accusation.





Andrew


What??

See posts 12 and 14.

You COULD argue that some books are fully canonical, but I don't understand how you can say that non-canonical books are canonical. Lost me, brother, explain how non-canonical books are thus canonical? I don't understand.



Apocrapha refers to ANY writing that is thus labeled as uncanonical, unauthentic, dubious. It is sometimes used for sacred writings in any religion considered as such. YOU called this book uncanonical, unauthentic, dubious, I ONLY noted that THEREFORE, since that is your stance, why are we to regard what they say? We have books I suspect you regard as NOT apocrypha or DEUTEROcanonical that quite significantly shows that Jesus fulfills prophe






I did. See post 12.

I don't see these as definite prophecies of Jesus but they could be - just not possible to determine, IMO. But since you reject all three of these as authentic and authoritative, why look to THESE when we have so many very good ones from books you (likely) consider not as apocrypha or even deuterocanonical? That was my question (you didn't answer).




.

I used apocrypha for the sake of argument but sure, from now on, when I refer to specific books of the canon I will call them canon instead of apocrypha.

So that is where I stand and now you can re answer the question since in post 12 you claim it was me that confused your decision.

The Book of Wisdom Chapter 2, is that a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ Yay or Nay?

 

[NathanH83]

I used apocrypha for the sake of argument but sure, from now on, when I refer to specific books of the canon I will call them canon instead of apocrypha.

So that it where I stand and now you can re answer the question since in post 12 you claim it was me that confused your decision.

The Book of Wisdom Chapter 2, is that a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ Yay or Nay?

Yay

 

[Josiah]

Yes, the early church used the Septuagint.

The LXX was a GREEK translation of Hebrew materials. Since most Christians in the early centuries could not read Hebrew but could read Greek, it is not shocking that they used a translation in a language they could read. You may use an English translation, perhaps because you can't read Hebrew or Greek. Perhaps you are TRYING to force some mysterious, unstated significance to people (like you and me) who can't read Hebrew and Greek using a translation into a language they can read.

But you pastor does not use a translation. No biblical scholar or theologian does. They take years of biblical Hebrew and koine Greek in college because translations aren't used in seminaries or by pastors or scholars or theologians. You know the adage "Something got lost in the translation" (it's equally true, "something got added in the translation").

They quoted from the apocryphal books as scripture.

Well, I have no idea who this "THEY" are that you keep mentioning..... But yes, you can find 2 or 3 or 4 who quote from some book you call "apocrypha" (unauthentic, uncanonical, unreliable) and call such "SCRIPTURE." Yup. Of course, the exact same can be said for The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Epistle of Barnabas and others. So, if your rubric is "It's fully canonical Scripture if I can find 3 Christians who specially call it that" then you must also accept the Didache, Shepherd, Barnabas and more as among The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture. I doubt you can find 4 prominent ECF naming every book in the Greek Orthodox Bible "SCRIPTURE'... and you can find such for books NOT found in the Catholic or Greek, Orthodox or Anglican or Reformed bibles where some DID call "SCRIPTURE." I think your apologetic is very flawed.


Non-Hebrew speaking Christians used a translation of the Hebrew. Eventually, some couldn't read Greek either and so a Latin translation came about. I image you use a translation for the same reason nearly all lay Christians always have. Nothing surprising or significant about that. We like to read stuff in a language we can read. But this does not prove that books contain prophecies of Jesus.





.

 

[Josiah]

The Book of Wisdom Chapter 2, is that a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ Yay or Nay?

Not sure. Maybe. Perhaps not.




.



.

 

[Josiah]

the early church used the Septuagint.

Nathan


You have no evidence of this (thus, offer none);. YES, we know SOME CHRISTIAN INDIVIDUALS did, for a very simple (and very insignificant) reason - most early Christians could not read Hebrew but could read Greek. They wanted to read things in a language they could read. Is that so amazing? Eventually, many Christians couldn't read Greek either and so many used the Latin translation that came about. Today, many Americans read things in English and only pastors, biblical scholars and theologians read religious writings in ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. Brother, often people like to read stuff in a language they can read. This does NOT mean that they viewed a TRANSLATION as anything other than just a translation, not as the Church's official declaration of what is and is not fully/equally canonical, not as the actual inspired words of God (rather than the Hebrew). It was a translation... a common one.... like the Latin Vulgate was for centuries, like Luther's was for centuries, like the KJV was for centuries. There's no more significance to it than that. A lot of early Christians could not read Hebrew. A lot of them still can't. It's as simple as that.

Like the King James Only bunch, Nathan you could argue that the KJV (in 16th Century English) IS the holy Scripture - just as it appeared in some tome they found from1611. But I'm sure you find that silly and absurd, even though you too realize that for nearly 400 years, hundreds of millions of English speaking people read it, used it, quoted it and called a verse in English "Scripture" "Word of God." Consider that, my brother.

They quoted from the apocryphal books as scripture.

Well, you can find 2 or 3 or 4 who stated some book you might mean by apocrypha (unauthentic, uncanonical) as "SCRIPTURE" but then they also did the same for several other books: The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, the Epistle of Barnabas. So what? You don't accept it when ECF call a book specifically "SCRIPTURE" if YOU don't think it is, so why should others do what you don't do?






.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan


You have no evidence of this (thus, offer none);. YES, we know SOME CHRISTIAN INDIVIDUALS did, for a very simple (and very insignificant) reason - most early Christians could not read Hebrew but could read Greek. They wanted to read things in a language they could read. Is that so amazing? Eventually, many Christians couldn't read Greek either and so many used the Latin translation that came about. Today, many Americans read things in English and only pastors, biblical scholars and theologians read religious writings in ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. Brother, often people like to read stuff in a language they can read. This does NOT mean that they viewed a TRANSLATION as anything other than just a translation, not as the Church's official declaration of what is and is not fully/equally canonical, not as the actual inspired words of God (rather than the Hebrew). It was a translation... a common one.... like the Latin Vulgate was for centuries, like Luther's was for centuries, like the KJV was for centuries. There's no more significance to it than that. A lot of early Christians could not read Hebrew. A lot of them still can't. It's as simple as that.

Like the King James Only bunch, Nathan you could argue that the KJV (in 16th Century English) IS the holy Scripture - just as it appeared in some tome they found from1611. But I'm sure you find that silly and absurd, even though you too realize that for nearly 400 years, hundreds of millions of English speaking people read it, used it, quoted it and called a verse in English "Scripture" "Word of God." Consider that, my brother.








Well, you can find 2 or 3 or 4 who stated some book you might mean by apocrypha (unauthentic, uncanonical) as "SCRIPTURE" but then they also did the same for several other books: The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, the Epistle of Barnabas. So what? You don't accept it when ECF call a book specifically "SCRIPTURE" if YOU don't think it is, so why should others do what you don't do?






.

They didn’t just use the Greek. They compared the Greek with the Hebrew, condemned the Hebrew and defended the Greek.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

How do you know the Jews never did? Just because the unbelieving Jews today SAY that they never did? Did you know there are Jews today in Israel who are trying to get Tobit back in to the canon of scripture?

It seems to me that the only logical way for the early church to have accepted these books as scripture is if the Jews did originally. That’s the only logical explanation.

I’ve seen comments from Jews even today who think Maccabees ought to be in their Bibles. Many Jews think it makes no sense for it not to be. Here they are celebrating it every winter, and it’s not in their Bibles. Many Jews today just wish it was in there.

And the overwhelming majority affirmation in the Christian Church is that the Christians did accept it. So clearly the majority affirmation agrees with me. Every Christian Bible had these books until the 1500’s. Even then they were in a separate section. Not until the 1800’s were they completely removed. Think of that. 1800 years these books were in every Christian Bible. Then taken out in 1885.

Where are the Jewish voices from BEFORE the time of Christ who said that these books aren’t scripture?

 

[Andrew]

Not sure. Maybe. Perhaps not.




.



.

So the obvious prophecy which was circulated among Christians until the end of the 4rth century when Jerome shockingly discovered that the Jews don't accept it, is a "Not sure. Maybe. Perhaps not"?

Look I made a timeline of the evolution of the "Apocrypha" helping create the Protestant canon, is it accurate?

Late 4th Century Early 5th Century,
Jerome has authority from the Pope to translate the Hebrew Text straight to Latin to bypass the Greek all together. Jerome travels to Jerusalem and eventually settles in Bethlehem, while studying under the Jews Jerome discovers that a number of traditional books used in the Church are not found among the Hebrew, his decision was to adopt the Jewish canon and declare the traditional books which are not found in the Jewish canon as non-canon "Apocrypha" but remain among the Old Testament books in their original places.

"This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles"

16th Century, 1534, Martin Luther, books and portions of books not found in the masoretic text of Judaism are moved out of the body of the Old Testament and placed in between the Old and New Testament. As an authority for the division he cited Jerome

1611 The English Language KJV follows the lead of Luthers by placing the "Apocrypha" section in between the Old and New Testament

Mid 17th Century, the Westminister Confession of Faith excluded the "Apocrypha" from the canon based on Sola Scriptura claiming the books have no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved or made use of than any other human writing

Early 19th Century, the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha resulting in the the decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that not printing the Apocrypha within the Bible would be less costly to produce. The King James Bible stopped publishing the Apocrypha section

 

[pinacled]

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

It doesn't point to salvation.

Based on its tone of language the books were written in th 1900s

 

[eddif]

Errors in DNA Replication

Although DNA usually replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen. The majority of these mistakes are corrected through DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones...

www.nature.com

Those who study cell replication already know about errors. Mutations ate

Scripture errors are similar. You read the text and examine for truth and error. Just because something sounds a little like scripture; it does not mean it is scripture.

eddif

 

[eddif]

How about math rules
P (Jesus must be in parenthesis)
E importance level of exponent
M multiply
D divide information to compare
A add ( do not add error)
S subtract ( do not remove truth)

all this is done in one direction
If
You do not follow the rules you get a wrong answer.

A math major can see what errors are happening.

I can not always spot the math errors, but sometimes I do see the mistakes.

I can not always see scriptural error, but sometimes I see the errors.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Let me do just my comfortable level of math.
Long division on paper.
no terms:
Is there a decimal to be moved first?
1. Divide
2. Multiply (check to see if your number is too large or small,
3. Subtract ( second check reverse add)
4. Bring down
5. Repeat divide, multiply, subtract, bring down
6. At the end take your answer and multiply.

if we were as careful with doctrine as we were with math we might catch mistakes more often.

If you borrow money do you
Find out you are paying 18% interest with all the hidden charges?

I know why numbers? Why are numbers in scripture? Not so you can take Jesus out of the parenthesis and just study numbers.

eddif

 

[NathanH83]

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

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.

 

[Lamb]

Shouldn’t this history be in the Bible?



So in order to address the original question:

How does the apocrypha point someone to Christ?

I’m not exactly sure.

You asked "Shouldn't this history be in the Bible?"

The answer is, not necessarily. There is a lot of history that isn't in the Bible because the Bible isn't just an historical lesson of the past, it's to point the way to Jesus as your Savior.

Then you answered my topic question saying you aren't exactly sure how the apocrypha points to Christ and that's very honest, thank you.

@Andrew gave 3 verses from various apocryphal books and out of those 3 there is question of the date of 2 of the books and even suggestion that they were written after Christ's death.

 

[NathanH83]

You asked "Shouldn't this history be in the Bible?"

The answer is, not necessarily. There is a lot of history that isn't in the Bible because the Bible isn't just an historical lesson of the past, it's to point the way to Jesus as your Savior.

Then you answered my topic question saying you aren't exactly sure how the apocrypha points to Christ and that's very honest, thank you.

@Andrew gave 3 verses from various apocryphal books and out of those 3 there is question of the date of 2 of the books and even suggestion that they were written after Christ's death.

Except that they included it in the Bible and called it divine, canonical scripture. Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Look up those councils.

And there’s lots of other things in the Old Testament that I don’t exactly know how they point to Christ.

Were you even listening???

 

[Josiah]

They didn’t just use the Greek. They compared the Greek with the Hebrew, condemned the Hebrew and defended the Greek.

You offer ZERO evidence for this. List for us all the Christians from 33-313 AD who used BOTH a Greek translation of the Hebrew AND WITH IT, also the Hebrew and "compared the two." List the names. Quote the documents where they "compared the two."


Friend, 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'm looking forward to seeing the list of men you will provide of Christians fluent in Hebrew but chose to use a Greek translation instead, and you posting here the documents where they compare the Hebrew to a Greek translation.



.

 

[NathanH83]

You offer ZERO evidence for this. List for us all the Christians from 33-313 AD who used BOTH a Greek translation of the Hebrew AND WITH IT, also the Hebrew and "compared the two." List the names. Quote the documents where they "compared the two."


Friend, 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'm looking forward to seeing the list of men you will provide of Christians fluent in Hebrew but chose to use the Greek instead, the documents where they compare the Hebrew to a Greek translation.



.

In Eusebius’ Chronicon, he compared the Hebrew and Greek in the genealogy in Genesis 11. He knew the difference between the numbers, how there’s a 650 year difference. He said that the Hebrew is untrustworthy and unreliable, and said that the Greek Septuagint is translated from old and accurate Hebrew texts. 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.

 

[Lamb]

Except that they included it in the Bible and called it divine, canonical scripture. Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Look up those councils.

And there’s lots of other things in the Old Testament that I don’t exactly know how they point to Christ.

Were you even listening???

Yes, I'm listening. Pointing to Christ is the purpose for God giving us His Word so that we may have salvation.

 

[NathanH83]

Yes, I'm listening. Pointing to Christ is the purpose for God giving us His Word so that we may have salvation.

Yes, I agree with that. But we don’t just take books out of the Bible just because we don’t know at the moment how they point to Christ.

It really does seem to me that this history must be included in our Bibles. I felt that even before reading Maccabees. And then to find out that the early church DID include that history in the Bible, that just confirmed what I already felt in my spirit.

How do we think that we have more authority than the early church councils who defined the canon of scripture? We can’t just rip stuff out, or else we’ve become like the very dogs and swine which Jesus said tramples the holy and precious pearls.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
-Matthew 7:6

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7:6 - New King James Version

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

www.biblegateway.com

Maybe I don’t know how Maccabees points to Christ. But I DO know how Jesus points to Maccabees, since John 10:22 tells us that Jesus was present at the Feast which commemorates the Maccabean revolt.