From Passover to easter.

[notuptome]

It was there before Martin Luther and it was not the RCC that added it, it was there when the Apostles were using the LXX, which is what Paul and all other NT writers quote from not the Hebrew.

Please show me where the apostles or any NT writer quoted from the apocrypha.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

[keck553]

It was there before Martin Luther and it was not the RCC that added it, it was there when the Apostles were using the LXX, which is what Paul and all other NT writers quote from not the Hebrew.

Neither Jesus nor any of His Emissaries used the Apocrypha as Scripture ("it is written"). Not once. And it is highly doubtful they used the Septuagint; in fact other than Torah, the rest of the Septuagint is very questionable in authenticity, and the claims of the 70 scribes in 70 rooms writing the exact same translation to Greek (especially since the LXX is an interpretation) is not believable. Some believe other than the 5 books of Moese, the Septuagint was penned after the Gospels and AW were established. The only benefit of the Septuagint is for checking how some Hebrew words were translated to Greek to help us with context in the AW.

However Jesus and His Talmadim did refer to the TaNaKh canon over 230 times, and inferred the TaNaKh well over 300 times. None of the Apocrypha is in the Jewish canon. None of it.

[Br. Barnabas]

Neither Jesus nor any of His Emissaries used the Apocrypha as Scripture ("it is written"). Not once. And it is highly doubtful they used the Septuagint; in fact other than Torah, the rest of the Septuagint is very questionable in authenticity, and the claims of the 70 scribes in 70 rooms writing the exact same translation to Greek (especially since the LXX is an interpretation) is not believable. Some believe other than the 5 books of Moese, the Septuagint was penned after the Gospels and AW were established. The only benefit of the Septuagint is for checking how some Hebrew words were translated to Greek to help us with context in the AW.

However Jesus and His Talmadim did refer to the TaNaKh canon over 230 times, and inferred the TaNaKh well over 300 times. None of the Apocrypha is in the Jewish canon. None of it.

I did not say they quoted from the Apocrypha, I said they quoted from the LXX, all quotes from the NT of the OT are from the LXX, you can check any Biblical scholarship book to find this information. However, you are mistaken, Jude did quote from the book of 1 Enoch in his letter. The Letter of Aristeas where the story of the LXX comes from is fantasy no scholars believe it actually happened but it makes a fun story. TaNaKh did not have a set canon until the Jewish council of Jamina around 90, before that the writings of the TaNaKh were not set down and there were several different ones floating around and being read and used.

But the point remains that the Early Church and the Fathers did use the LXX and used all of it and wrote commentaries on all of it. Only the RCC and the Orthodox churches derive doctrine from it.

[keck553]

I did not say they quoted from the Apocrypha, I said they quoted from the LXX, all quotes from the NT of the OT are from the LXX, you can check any Biblical scholarship book to find this information.

Not from any of my "scholorship" books.

For one thing a "jot" or a "tittle" (Matthew 5:28) are HEBREW characters, not Greek. Why would Jesus even mention HEBREW characters if He used the LXX?

Jesus also referred to Scripture as "Torah" and "Nevi'im" or "Torah, Nevi'im and Tehillim," divisions maintained in the HEBREW Scriptures, but not in the LXX.

Therefore Jesus did not use the LXX.

The Septagint is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit. You won't find one Jew on planet earth to agree that it is. It is possible the LXX was copied from the AW, making it a cheap fraud, which is. in fact probable. I realize that Cathlolics desparately need the LXX to be authentic to support their doctrine, and I also realize the Catholic church stuck itself in the seat of Moses, however, Jesus had something to aay about that too.

However, you are mistaken, Jude did quote from the book of 1 Enoch in his letter.

Paul quoted from pagan philosphers, does that make pagan philosphy holy writ? Besides....

I do not agree. There are other Canon references Jude (Yehuda) could have used. In Deut. 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them.”

The word for saints here is "kodesh" in Hebrew- meaning holy ones; "hagiais muriasin," literally, "in or among holy myriads." The saints (holy ones) can mean angels or faithful human beings, or both.

Jude 14 The word for ten thousand, is representation of a tremendous number- myriads, it has the meaning of the highest number at that time that one could calculate.

Creatures located in Heaven are described in Daniel 7:10 as “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.”

Rev 5:11 “Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands. ” The bible teaches that heaven has a vast population of both angels and people- saints. These are those (either one or both groups) who will come with him when he comes to earth to judge and set up his kingdom.

Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; we know that what he quoted from Enoch was true. This is confirmed by the fact that the same idea about the Lord returning with His holy ones to render judgment found elsewhere in the Bible, Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalm 96:13, Deut. 33:2.
The apocryphal writing called "the Book of Enoch," contains a statement resembling Jude’s, but there is no proof it existed at the time of Jude.

The Letter of Aristeas where the story of the LXX comes from is fantasy no scholars believe it actually happened but it makes a fun story. TaNaKh did not have a set canon until the Jewish council of Jamina around 90, before that the writings of the TaNaKh were not set down and there were several different ones floating around and being read and used.

Maybe the RCC should correct Jesus then.
Other than perhaps Ruth, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings were well established in Jesus' time. They read from all of them in 3 year cycles, Torah, and hafTorah. Where do you think they came from?

But the point remains that the Early Church and the Fathers did use the LXX and used all of it and wrote commentaries on all of it. Only the RCC and the Orthodox churches derive doctrine from it.

No proof.

[percho]

Since the Lord's Supper happend on Passover, I'd say you're correct. Of course we reformed Christians wouldn't want to keep a day Jesus kept, and said "do this in rememberance of me, would we????

Is there a true caender of God for the 14th that you know of?

[ProDeo]

Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; we know that what he quoted from Enoch was true. This is confirmed by the fact that the same idea about the Lord returning with His holy ones to render judgment found elsewhere in the Bible, Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalm 96:13, Deut. 33:2.

The apocryphal writing called "the Book of Enoch," contains a statement resembling Jude’s, but there is no proof it existed at the time of Jude.

I found the exact text on: http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp118.htm

But without the italics.

So now I wonder if you assumed no proof it existed at the time of Jude without checking or perhaps you are the author of that article?

Anyway, the Wiki suggests otherwise.

[watchinginawe]

Sacrificing was ended with the destruction of the Temple in I think 70AD. So funny about the Christians that can just take every little thing out of prespective... So sorry that people just don't see Fathers love in the Word of G-D

Francois Marais, who is blinded to the love of God in the Bible? We can discuss this without that, right? Don't you believe that I can see the love of God in the Bible even if we disagree a bit on whether keeping the Passover is a Christian foundation?

I will try to reply to this tonight (if not tonight later this week) and I am not blessed with a family of my own yet. So I don't have children.

But I would tell them how much YHWH loved them to send his only Son to die for our shortcomings and errors in our ways.

I read through the thread links you offered and didn't find anything about how to "keep the passover" as a Christian, they were mostly about the "Easter controversy". I am already aware of the controversies of the season and I believe anyone would be blessed to study them out, so I am glad you included them. But it takes more than a "shocking glance" to come to an informed opinion I think.

We have this from the Old Testament in what to tell the children when they ask "why is Passover observed?".

Exodus 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.

26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?

27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

[Br. Barnabas]

Not from any of my "scholorship" books.

For one thing a "jot" or a "tittle" (Matthew 5:28) are HEBREW characters, not Greek. Why would Jesus even mention HEBREW characters if He used the LXX?

Jesus also referred to Scripture as "Torah" and "Nevi'im" or "Torah, Nevi'im and Tehillim," divisions maintained in the HEBREW Scriptures, but not in the LXX.

Therefore Jesus did not use the LXX.

The Septagint is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit. You won't find one Jew on planet earth to agree that it is. It is possible the LXX was copied from the AW, making it a cheap fraud, which is. in fact probable. I realize that Cathlolics desparately need the LXX to be authentic to support their doctrine, and I also realize the Catholic church stuck itself in the seat of Moses, however, Jesus had something to aay about that too.



Paul quoted from pagan philosphers, does that make pagan philosphy holy writ? Besides....

I do not agree. There are other Canon references Jude (Yehuda) could have used. In Deut. 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them.”

The word for saints here is "kodesh" in Hebrew- meaning holy ones; "hagiais muriasin," literally, "in or among holy myriads." The saints (holy ones) can mean angels or faithful human beings, or both.

Jude 14 The word for ten thousand, is representation of a tremendous number- myriads, it has the meaning of the highest number at that time that one could calculate.

Creatures located in Heaven are described in Daniel 7:10 as “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.”

Rev 5:11 “Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands. ” The bible teaches that heaven has a vast population of both angels and people- saints. These are those (either one or both groups) who will come with him when he comes to earth to judge and set up his kingdom.

Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; we know that what he quoted from Enoch was true. This is confirmed by the fact that the same idea about the Lord returning with His holy ones to render judgment found elsewhere in the Bible, Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalm 96:13, Deut. 33:2.
The apocryphal writing called "the Book of Enoch," contains a statement resembling Jude’s, but there is no proof it existed at the time of Jude.



Maybe the RCC should correct Jesus then.
Other than perhaps Ruth, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings were well established in Jesus' time. They read from all of them in 3 year cycles, Torah, and hafTorah. Where do you think they came from?



No proof.

Most quotes in the NT of the OT are from the LXX that is a known fact in Biblical scholarship. If you read the NT in Greek and compare the OT quotes to the LXX they are exactly the same. You can check out Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity for proof, if you like. That is why most scholars believe Matthew was never written in Hebrew because all his quotes are from the LXX. The RCC does not need the LXX to be inspired; they can keep using it all they want because the Early Church used it. The Christians used it because they did not feel like listening to what the Jews wanted to do with their Scriptures after they rejected Jesus.

The part about Jude does not matter I just pointed that out to show that NT writers did use other texts that were floating around out there.

The Writings were not well established in Jesus time they were not finalized until 90 with Jamina. If they were well established then copies of the LXX from Jesus' time would not have them. Jude would not be quoting from 1 Enoch and making reference to the Testament of Moses, other writers from around the 1st century would not be commenting on them. If you look in to 2nd Temple Judaism you will see there were all sorts of text around and were being considered and used by pious Jews for all sorts of things.

There is proof that the Early Church and the Fathers did use the LXX, ever heard of Origen? He used it in his 6 columned Bible along with a transliteration into the Hebrew and actual Hebrew text and other languages. You can look at commentaries from the ECFs on the Apocrypha and on the other OT books taken from the LXX because they did not know Hebrew. Pretty much Origen and Jerome are the only ECFs to do anything with Hebrew. There is proof.

And FYI I am not arguing for the RCC because I am not RCC, I'm Anglican. I am just arguing for historical accuracy.

[watchinginawe]

Just for the record. Lev. 23:5,6 In the fourteenth [day](The day Christ died) of the first month at even [is] the LORD'S passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month [is] the feast (1 Cor. 5:8) of unleavened bread unto the LORD:

I think what is a good question is in verse 7, 1 Cor. 5 how is it that they are unleavened? Also why did the feast of unleavened bread last seven days, This I don't know?

How is it that they are unleavened in I Corinthians 5:7? The congregation would be "unleavened" by ridding themselves of the mentioned fornicator.

1 Corinthians 1:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Paul turns to his comparison of their indecision about the matter to a comparison of leaven in bread:

1 Corinthians 1:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Leaven was seen to represent "sin" in the Old Testament according to Paul in this passage. Paul insists that the sin of this person was be purged or it would work it's way through the whole congregation like leaven in bread.

They were not to replace one leaven with just another type of leaven (verse 8). Sin can not be purged with sin, thus it takes actions based in sincerity and truth.

As Rabbi has already offered, Paul is talking continually here, not a particular observance during a particular time or season. Keeping the feast, as Paul offers in verse 8, is keeping the Church continually in Christ. We can use the same principle personally.

[watchinginawe]

Most quotes in the NT of the OT are from the LXX that is a known fact in Biblical scholarship. If you read the NT in Greek and compare the OT quotes to the LXX they are exactly the same. You can check out Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity for proof, if you like. That is why most scholars believe Matthew was never written in Hebrew because all his quotes are from the LXX. The RCC does not need the LXX to be inspired; they can keep using it all they want because the Early Church used it. The Christians used it because they did not feel like listening to what the Jews wanted to do with their Scriptures after they rejected Jesus.

The part about Jude does not matter I just pointed that out to show that NT writers did use other texts that were floating around out there.

The Writings were not well established in Jesus time they were not finalized until 90 with Jamina. If they were well established then copies of the LXX from Jesus' time would not have them. Jude would not be quoting from 1 Enoch and making reference to the Testament of Moses, other writers from around the 1st century would not be commenting on them. If you look in to 2nd Temple Judaism you will see there were all sorts of text around and were being considered and used by pious Jews for all sorts of things.

There is proof that the Early Church and the Fathers did use the LXX, ever heard of Origen? He used it in his 6 columned Bible along with a transliteration into the Hebrew and actual Hebrew text and other languages. You can look at commentaries from the ECFs on the Apocrypha and on the other OT books taken from the LXX because they did not know Hebrew. Pretty much Origen and Jerome are the only ECFs to do anything with Hebrew. There is proof.

And FYI I am not arguing for the RCC because I am not RCC, I'm Anglican. I am just arguing for historical accuracy.

On the note of historical accuracy, we know now that the LXX is flawed, and not necessarily just because of the sources that it was translated from. This was an issue in the reformation where the Church in Rome extended their defense of the LXX beyond reasonable in order to defend tradition based partly on the LXX. Since the ideas of the reformers were held to be "innovations" and thus to be rejected by the Church, the Church in Rome had a vested interest in defending previous tradition from themselves being "innovations" based on flawed translations.

Regarding quoted materials, Paul quoted the Greek poets, but that doesn't make their writings inspired. If the LXX was the Old Testament Bible of the day and the region in the first century, then that was the way it was, it doesn't make sense to invent alternative history, so I agree with you in not being offended by history.

[keck553]

Is there a true caender of God for the 14th that you know of?

Jesus believed there was.

[keck553]

Most quotes in the NT of the OT are from the LXX that is a known fact in Biblical scholarship. If you read the NT in Greek and compare the OT quotes to the LXX they are exactly the same. You can check out Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity for proof, if you like. That is why most scholars believe Matthew was never written in Hebrew because all his quotes are from the LXX. The RCC does not need the LXX to be inspired; they can keep using it all they want because the Early Church used it. The Christians used it because they did not feel like listening to what the Jews wanted to do with their Scriptures after they rejected Jesus.

The is no proof the LXX was written before the AW. So who copied whom? In the first place, the Jewish authors like Matthew and some other Jewish penned AW were probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. So how is it that the LXX could be a source document for a differnent venacular, word for word? That makes no sense. Secondly, there are references to Hebrew characters in the AW that do not exist in Greek, so we know those references were to Hebrew writings. Thirdly, no synagogue in 1st century Israel would have thier weekly Torah and hafTorah readiings in Greek, that is just plain nonsense. Forthly, the divisions of the Hebrew canon are clearly referenced in the AW, divisions that simply do not exist in the LXX.
Bottom line is all your evidence is circumstantial at best. I say it was all fabricated by the RCC to support their heresy.
I've read the LXX, it is a mess. No religious Jew would give it any consideration, let alone the King of kings.

The Writings were not well established in Jesus time they were not finalized until 90 with Jamina.

Not true. Jesus stood in a Synagogue and read from Isaiah. Obviously He was participating in the weekly Torah/hafTorah readings and his turn came up (men from the assembly read portions from the Scriptures then, just as Messianic Jews do these days, followed by a d'rash from the Congregation Leader) He read from Jewish Canon. Jesus also attests to the order of Jewish Canon (Law, Psalms and Prophets) which exists to this day. Yes, they were separate scrolls, but they were still Jewish canon. So your argument falls apart based on Jesus' own words. Jewish canon is exactly Protestant canon minus the AW. I trust that 100% more than RCC rooted apologetics.

If they were well established then copies of the LXX from Jesus' time would not have them. Jude would not be quoting from 1 Enoch and making reference to the Testament of Moses, other writers from around the 1st century would not be commenting on them. If you look in to 2nd Temple Judaism you will see there were all sorts of text around and were being considered and used by pious Jews for all sorts of things.

Jude is not quoting from 1 Enoch. The only references I see in the AW to non-Canon sources are Rabbinic Rulings eminating from the Great Assembly. In fact Peter falls victim to Oral Traditions in Acts when God gives him the vision of the unclean animals on the sheet.

There is proof that the Early Church and the Fathers did use the LXX, ever heard of Origen? He used it in his 6 columned Bible along with a transliteration into the Hebrew and actual Hebrew text and other languages. You can look at commentaries from the ECFs on the Apocrypha and on the other OT books taken from the LXX because they did not know Hebrew. Pretty much Origen and Jerome are the only ECFs to do anything with Hebrew. There is proof.

Speaking of Jerome, he clearly separated the apocrypha from Scripture, defining it as 'useful to the church' but not Scripture. At any rate, we're discussing the AW, not Catholics

And FYI I am not arguing for the RCC because I am not RCC, I'm Anglican. I am just arguing for historical accuracy.

I understand. I held the same position for a time.

[The Mighty Sword]

the Jewish authors like Matthew and some other Jewish penned AW were probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek.

And that is what the arguing is all about, keck you hit the nail on the head.

[Raybob]

I'm not a Judeo Christian. Don't know what that is...

I didn't know either so I looked it up. It's a relatively new word (115 yrs) that is an adjective, not a noun.

**********************
From dictionary.com:

Ju·de·o-Chris·tian –adjective
of or pertaining to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by judaism and christianity.
Also, Judaeo-Christian.

Origin: 1895–1900
***************

I'm not real sure what traditions are held in common though.

[keck553]

I didn't know either so I looked it up. It's a relatively new word (115 yrs) that is an adjective, not a noun.

**********************
From dictionary.com:

Ju·de·o-Chris·tian –adjective
of or pertaining to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by judaism and christianity.
Also, Judaeo-Christian.

Origin: 1895–1900
***************

I'm not real sure what traditions are held in common though.

Before the RCC stripped all Jewishness from early Christianity, they had lots in common.