You mean parroting what you can only wish could be established:
Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
Also,
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well. Moreover, simply because Scripture quotes from a source does not make the whole of it canonical, as Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.) By accepting only that subset, you loudly proclaim that not only is the Holy Spirit imperfect and incapable of keeping error from being accepted into the canon for so many centuries, and therefore deny the Holy Trinity, Now we must address your reasoning, for just what kind of false dilemma logic is that? You might as well argue that if you accept that there can be typos in Biblical mss and the Vulgate then it means you loudly proclaim that the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of keeping any type of errors from being part of the Bible, however discernible by later . The problems with the Vulgate were such that no one version of it was set forth and resulted in the scandal of the Sistine Vulgate by the zealous Pope Sixtus V to make (via the Bull Aeternus Ille, March 1590) his very faulty revision of the Vulgate “the authorized Vulgate of the Tridentine Council,” and excommunicated those who deviated from it. Which resulted the death (perhaps by RC hands) of its fanatical papal translator. But rather than your "either/or reasoning, we have the Scriptural reality of stewardship, in which while God could have kept man from both any sins or mistakes - and does so to varying degrees - yet there are limits,. and He allows men to sin and makes mistakes, and thus exhorts them to be "good stewards of the manifold grace of God," and will accomplish His purposes despite faulty men and magisteriums. In addition we have a false premise: but also in essence assert that the Holy Spirit worked hand in hand with Satan to lead people astray by leaving those books in the Old Testament for about 1800 years. Which not only means you accuse the EOs of letting the devil have a hand in their slightly larger canon, but it presumes that the deuteros was indisputably defined as being part of the OT for about 1800 years. And if debate was allowed, then (consistent with your logic) you can be charged with loudly proclaiming that the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of preventing confusion about the canon in the Catholic church for so many centuries. So, by definition (as per your logic), you absolutely do deny there is a Holy Trinity if you allow any kind of errors in Biblical mss and copies, and confusion about the canon due to lack of infallible judgment. For in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther. The Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages, In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:2) "So [consistent with your either/or reasoning and false premise] the next time you try and claim that the Holy Spirit leads you remember that by definition you assert that the Holy Spirit works with Satan, not Christ." have a nice day
It is quite obvious that God the Father, Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit all work with Satan. Or more correctly that Satan works for God.
God (the Trinity) has a plan. That plan as described in the Bible includes Satan. For the implementation of that plan God gave Satan dominion over the Earth.
If I give someone authority over some part of my property as part of my plan it is obvious that the person is doing my bidding. That person is working for me.
It is quite obvious that God the Father, Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit all work with Satan. Or more correctly that Satan works for God.
God (the Trinity) has a plan. That plan as described in the Bible includes Satan. For the implementation of that plan God gave Satan dominion over the Earth.
If I give someone authority over some part of my property as part of my plan it is obvious that the person is doing my bidding. That person is working for me.
Thank you for posting this explanation yet again. It should clarify the mistaken belief some have about the Bible. Sadly though, some horses we already know will not drink the water no matter how many times they are led to it nor how parched they obviously are. ;o)