Preaching from the apocrypha

[balshan]

Most of those who believe the apocrypha are part of Scripture, also believe they can conjure up the dead (which is sin) by praying to them. So their understanding of Scripture is highly suspect. But that is a whole other thread.

It is where RCs get a few of their false beliefs from as well as the POJ. It is wonder they did not make that book scripture.

 

[balshan]

But sine you ask:

The Hebrew Jews never accept the Greek scriptures as Kosher.

 

[Mik]

The Septuagint, as I'm sure you know, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which Greek speaking Jews in diaspora used. The Septuagint Scriptures were those used by the early Christians. It is also the text that is quoted most often in the New Testament. Authors Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno in their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, both Protestants by the way, list 340 places where the New Testament authors cite the Septuagint and only 33 where the New Testament authors cite the Masoretic text. Obviously the text had authority with the Apostles and with Christ.

Not included (apocrypha) the Christian Bible.
Most of those who believe the apocrypha are part of Scripture, also believe they can conjure up the dead (which is sin) by praying to them. So their understanding of Scripture is highly suspect. But that is a whole other thread

 

[ziapueblo]

The Hebrew Jews never accept the Greek scriptures as Kosher.

Sure they did. Manuscripts of the Septuagint text have been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant Bibles use the Septuagint a reference nowadays. It was not until around the 2nd century AD that the Jews rejected these text.

I'll use the Old Testament used by the early Christians and the one that was quoted by the Apostles and Christ Himself.

 

[ziapueblo]

Not included (apocrypha) the Christian Bible.

These text were included in the Christian Bible, that is, until the 1500s.

Most of those who believe the apocrypha are part of Scripture, also believe they can conjure up the dead (which is sin) by praying to them.

What Christians believe they can conjure up the dead? That's a huge sin! Yes, we have gone over that and you have shown you have not understanding of the Orthodox faith. Only what you think you know

I'll stick with the Old Testament which is quoted in the New Testament and used by the early Christians.

 

[Mik]

These text were included in the Christian Bible, that is, until the 1500s.

Not included (apocrypha) in the Christian Bible.

What Christians believe they can conjure up the dead?

No True Christian would. You do though. Hmmmmmm...???

That's a huge sin!

But, yet you continue to pray to the dead.

Yes, we have gone over that and you have shown you have not understanding of the Orthodox faith. Only what you think you know

I understand God's Word. Your denomination tries to conjure up the dead. You can make all the excuses you want (the serpent speaks) to try to contact the dead. Praying to dead people = sin

I'll stick with the Old Testament which is quoted in the New Testament and used by the early Christians.

Of course you will. The ignorance of what is God's Word goes deep in your denomination.

 

[ziapueblo]

Not included (apocrypha) in the Christian Bible.

Yes they were. Learn your early Christian history. It was not until Martin Luther that these books were taken out.

No True Christian would. You do though. Hmmmmmm...???

Wrong!

But, yet you continue to pray to the dead.

Ask for the intercession of those who's spirits are alive and well in Heaven. Just as I have should numerous times from Scripture in another thread

I understand God's Word. Your denomination tries to conjure up the dead.

Who "conjures" up the dead? Definition of conjure: call upon (a spirit or ghost) to appear, by means of a magic ritual. Orthodox don't do this

You can make all the excuses you want (the serpent speaks) to try to contact the dead. Praying to dead people = sin

I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks for showing me how much you don't understand about Orthodoxy!!!!

Of course you will. The ignorance of what is God's Word goes deep in your denomination.

Nice try! I could say the same for your denomination. Although, Orthodox are not a denomination. We did not come from something else, from the Roman Catholic Church for example. Orthodoxy is what Christ taught, the Apostles preached and what the early Church kept.

 

[Mik]

Yes they were. Learn your early Christian history. It was not until Martin Luther that these books were taken out.


Wrong!


Ask for the intercession of those who's spirits are alive and well in Heaven. Just as I have should numerous times from Scripture in another thread


Who "conjures" up the dead? Definition of conjure: call upon (a spirit or ghost) to appear, by means of a magic ritual. Orthodox don't do this


I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks for showing me how much you don't understand about Orthodoxy!!!!


Nice try! I could say the same for your denomination. Although, Orthodox are not a denomination. We did not come from something else, from the Roman Catholic Church for example. Orthodoxy is what Christ taught, the Apostles preached and what the early Church kept.

Me: 'You can make all the excuses you want (the serpent speaks) to try to contact the dead. Praying to dead people = sin'

It is so sad. As I predicted. The serpent continues to speak in your ear. And you listen.
You 'asking for intercession' to dead people is exactly what 'conjuring up dead' is. SMH

I'm sad to see you think this is funny. Unfortunately, God does not (Deut 18:11......NASB1995
or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.)

 

[ziapueblo]

The serpent continues to speak in your ear.

You don't know Orthodoxy, the practices of the early Church, or the Scriptures when it comes to the "intercession" of the Saints.

'conjuring up dead' is. SMH

Thank you for the amusssing conversation. You are ignorant to this practice You think you know

I'm sad to see you think this is funny.

It is very amusing. Orthodox do not "conjure" up the dead. I find it very hysterical actually. Again, you have no knowledge of Orthodoxy only what you tell yourself.

 

[Mik]

You don't know Orthodoxy, the practices of the early Church, or the Scriptures when it comes to the "intercession" of the Saints.

I know what the Word of God teaches. Just shows Paul was right. The false teaching crept in. Just as it was during Paul's lifetime. And you continue to follow it. You conjure up dead people. You call it 'intercession'. God forbids it. You ignore God's Word to your own peril.

Thank you for the amusssing conversation. You are ignorant to this practice You think you know

It's sad you find it 'amusing'. I am glad I don't practice 'conjuring' (intercession) of dead people. You think YOU know. ?

It is very amusing. Orthodox do not "conjure" up the dead.

Of course you do. You just change it to 'intercession'.

I find it very hysterical actually.

That is too bad. God doesn't. Deut 18:11

Again, you have no knowledge of Orthodoxy only what you tell yourself.

Not your version of orthodoxy.
Apparently your knowledge of orthodoxy allows you to conjure up the dead. The serpent says, 'Don't worry, it is only intercession with dead people'. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[balshan]

Sure they did. Manuscripts of the Septuagint text have been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant Bibles use the Septuagint a reference nowadays. It was not until around the 2nd century AD that the Jews rejected these text.

I'll use the Old Testament used by the early Christians and the one that was quoted by the Apostles and Christ Himself.

They had many manuscripts and they weren't all accepted as scripture. Just because there were manuscripts there means nothing. They were studious group so may have been using them to compare to what they considered the true scriptures. You have proved nothing. They have always rejected them, as they rejected any temple outside of Jerusalem.

 

[ziapueblo]

They had many manuscripts and they weren't all accepted as scripture. Just because there were manuscripts there means nothing. They were studious group so may have been using them to compare to what they considered the true scriptures. You have proved nothing. They have always rejected them, as they rejected any temple outside of Jerusalem.

The Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint. It was not problem back then. The Sadducees only used the Books of Moses. The early Christians used the Septuagint text. This is a fact. 90% or more of Old Testament quotes in the NewTestament come from the Septuagint. This is a fact. All Christian Scriptures used the Septuagint until Luther took them out. This is a fact.

Again, I will use the Old Testament Scriptures used by the early Christians and the Apostles and rejected by the Jews some 100 years or more after Christs Accession.

 

[balshan]

The Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint. It was not problem back then. The Sadducees only used the Books of Moses. The early Christians used the Septuagint text. This is a fact. 90% or more of Old Testament quotes in the NewTestament come from the Septuagint. This is a fact. All Christian Scriptures used the Septuagint until Luther took them out. This is a fact.

Again, I will use the Old Testament Scriptures used by the early Christians and the Apostles and rejected by the Jews some 100 years or more after Christs Accession.

It was not accepted by the Hebrew Jews and it was Jerusalem that was the centre for Judaism. No matter are much you try and claim the Greek version has authority, it was accepted by the High priest and the ruling parties of Judaism.

So the Jewish apostles of that time were all followers of the Hebrew and not Greek because of where they lived. The language they spoke was Aramaic and some would speak Greek for business. They also spoke Hebrew for religious reasons.

That is an exaggeration as the RCC preferrred Latin for donkeys ages.

There are no apocryphal quotes in the NT. The use of Greek in the NT could be because they were writing in Greek. We do not know if Greek was used when Matt wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which some scholars say it was first written in. Greek was not the common language in use in Israel (Judea, Galilee, Samaria) at the time.

But Netanyahu was technically correct as well. Hebrew, which is from the same linguistic family as Aramaic, was also in common use in Jesus’ day. Similar to Latin today, Hebrew was the chosen language for religious scholars and the holy scriptures, including the Bible (although some of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic).

What Language Did Jesus Speak? | HISTORY

While historians and scholars debate many aspects of Jesus' life, most agree on what language he mainly spoke.

www.history.com

Jesus would have been multi- lingual, as a lot of Jewish people still are today. But I am sure Jesus being both human and divine would have no trouble with many languages and he would of spoken Hebrew in synagogues.

 

[ziapueblo]

It was not accepted by the Hebrew Jews and it was Jerusalem that was the centre for Judaism.

That's fine. The Jewish faith can determine whatever books they choose to have in their Scriptures.

No matter are much you try and claim the Greek version has authority, it was accepted by the High priest and the ruling parties of Judaism.

Again, this is fine, but it was the Old Testament used by the early Christians. (And again, the Scriptures used by Greek speaking Jews in diaspora)

So the Jewish apostles of that time were all followers of the Hebrew and not Greek because of where they lived.

Yet the Greek Septuagint is the text used by New Testament authors.

The language they spoke was Aramaic and some would speak Greek for business.

I realize this. This argument however sounds very Roman Catholic. Aramaic was the common language spoken so Matthew 16:18 reads, "And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha, Aramaic for rock) and on this rock (Kepha) I will build my church . . . "

That is an exaggeration as the RCC preferrred Latin for donkeys ages.

And St Jerome's Vulgate (late 4th century) includes some of the "Deuterocanonical" texts: the additions of the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna and the Story of Bel the Dragon to the Book of Daniel. His Psalms come from the Septuagint, the additions to Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

There are no apocryphal quotes in the NT.

That's fine. There are other Old Testament Books which are not quoted in the New Testament.

The use of Greek in the NT could be because they were writing in Greek.

Bingo, hence, the Scriptures the Greek speaking Christians used.

We do not know if Greek was used when Matt wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which some scholars say it was first written in.

And some scholars agree that Matthew Gospel was actually written in Aramaic.

Greek was not the common language in use in Israel (Judea, Galilee, Samaria) at the time.

But it was the language used by most Christians and the Septuagint was the text they used. It was not until the early to mid 2nd century that the Jews put together an "official" canon. The Jews at the time of Christ did not have an "official" canon. Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint and the Sadducees used only the Books of Moses. St Paul writes, speaking of the Old Testament, that "all Scripture" is inspired. Well, the Septuagint has "all" the Old Testament text since St Paul wrote his Epistles in Greek, his quotes of the Old Testament in his letters come from the Septuagint. There are plenty of studies, and not only from Orthodox sources mind you, that show this.

 

[balshan]

That's fine. The Jewish faith can determine whatever books they choose to have in their Scriptures.


Again, this is fine, but it was the Old Testament used by the early Christians. (And again, the Scriptures used by Greek speaking Jews in diaspora)


Yet the Greek Septuagint is the text used by New Testament authors.


I realize this. This argument however sounds very Roman Catholic. Aramaic was the common language spoken so Matthew 16:18 reads, "And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha, Aramaic for rock) and on this rock (Kepha) I will build my church . . . "


And St Jerome's Vulgate (late 4th century) includes some of the "Deuterocanonical" texts: the additions of the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna and the Story of Bel the Dragon to the Book of Daniel. His Psalms come from the Septuagint, the additions to Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.


That's fine. There are other Old Testament Books which are not quoted in the New Testament.


Bingo, hence, the Scriptures the Greek speaking Christians used.


And some scholars agree that Matthew Gospel was actually written in Aramaic.


But it was the language used by most Christians and the Septuagint was the text they used. It was not until the early to mid 2nd century that the Jews put together an "official" canon. The Jews at the time of Christ did not have an "official" canon. Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint and the Sadducees used only the Books of Moses. St Paul writes, speaking of the Old Testament, that "all Scripture" is inspired. Well, the Septuagint has "all" the Old Testament text since St Paul wrote his Epistles in Greek, his quotes of the Old Testament in his letters come from the Septuagint. There are plenty of studies, and not only from Orthodox sources mind you, that show this.

NO it was the OT for early Greek speaking believers and not Hebrew believers. It is meaningless to prove your acceptance of the false books.

No some actually agree Matt was written in hebrew.

 

[balshan]

NO it was the OT for early Greek speaking believers and not Hebrew believers. It is meaningless to prove your acceptance of the false books.

No some actually agree Matt was written in hebrew.

I will never agree with you, no matter what you come up with.

 

[ziapueblo]

I will never agree with you, no matter what you come up with.

I'm not coming up with anything and I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. It is crystal clear that the early Christians used the Septuagint and accepted these books. Martin Luther, 1500 years later, took them out. Good for him. Follow his canon.

 

[balshan]

I'm not coming up with anything and I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. It is crystal clear that the early Christians used the Septuagint and accepted these books. Martin Luther, 1500 years later, took them out. Good for him. Follow his canon.

Of course you are. Reading the other books clearly shows why they are not scripture.

 

[ziapueblo]

Of course you are.

Prove it! The earliest manuscripts show that the early Christians were using the Septuagint. The Orthodox always have along with the Catholic Church. It was not until Martin Luther took them out. The Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript has the majority of the Greek Old Testament along with the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).

I understand Protestant Christians have beef with Roman Catholics and want to separate themselves as far away from them as they can, but you cannot deny that the early Christians saw these books as authoritative.

 

[balshan]

Prove it! The earliest manuscripts show that the early Christians were using the Septuagint. The Orthodox always have along with the Catholic Church. It was not until Martin Luther took them out. The Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript has the majority of the Greek Old Testament along with the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).

I understand Protestant Christians have beef with Roman Catholics and want to separate themselves as far away from them as they can, but you cannot deny that the early Christians saw these books as authoritative.

You prove it, you have proved nothing. Only if they were Greek speakers and not all did. Jesus was a hebrew speaking Jewish person for religious matters. We can do this all day every day and I don't agree that books with errors in them were inspired. Discussing this with you is meaningless.

Also thinking the early Christians from Judea, Galilee were Greek thinking is incorrect and means the subtle understandings of the Hebrew mind is missed when translating the scriptures.