But the New Testament doesn't quote the Apocrypha at all, to the best of my knowledge, so apparently it WASN'T good enough for them.
The question to respond to the question in resonse to the question is: "Why should the Jews determine Christian Scripture?" They made this decision after the time of Christ and possibly in reaction to their use by Christians.
First of all, because the first Christians were ALL JEWS. We got our Old Testament straight from them! And even though the Jews didn't officially close their canon until about the end of the first century AD, they never considered the Apocrypha inspired. The 39 books of the Jewish Tanakh were considered inspired, and the Apocrypha were considered important reading for history etc.
If the Jews decide today to remove the book of Isaih shall we remove it?
Of course not, and it is a moot question. They never would. We never would. There are many reasons why this is true, for example, there is too much New Testament derived from Isaiah - Jesus Himself quoted from Isaiah numerous times, and it is one of the most prophetic books in the entire OT.
Ever read the verse where Paul specifically says he is NOT speaking for God? ("I, not the Lord say"). Yet that IS still Scripture.
That's not the same thing. Because Paul clearly DOES speak for God elsewhere within the same epistle. The verse to which you refer is in 1 Corinthians 7, and the first chapter of that verse finds Paul saying things "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and describing what God sent him to do. Chapter 2 begins with him "declaring the testimony of God."
Look at it this way - why do you think Paul felt it necessary to clarify at all, making sure they understood where that particular statement was coming from, unless he expected his audience to treat his words as teachings from the Lord?
The real question should be: If they were in there in the beginning and even in the original KJV/Authorized Version fifteen hundred years later... why take them out? Because the Jews had stopped using them more than a thousand years before? Or because some implied doctrinal texts don't match what you believe?
As previously stated, they weren't "in there" in the beginning. Therefore the Jews never "stopped using them" - the fact is, they never considered them as inspired from day one. It's not that they changed their minds. And I have no idea to what implied doctrinal texts you refer.
Darn. I guess we have to remove Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. I guess it will be a lot easier to memorize the books of the OT (I always stumble on Nahum).
I never said they quoted from it in the NT. But the Septuagint WAS the book they quoted from and was therefore the "Scriptures" Christ referred to.
First of all, because the first Christians were ALL JEWS. We got our Old Testament straight from them!
Umm, yeah. And once they Christians stopped associating with their former brothers because of obvious differences with the Jews who did not accept Christ, they stopped allowing them to define doctrine or Scripture. That is, until fifteen hundred or so years later when some schismatic Christians decide (I guess) that the Jews were more reliable than the people who had canonized the rest of Scripture.
And even though the Jews didn't officially close their canon until about the end of the first century AD, they never considered the Apocrypha inspired.
Really? There's no evidence that I've seen supporting that. The KJV included them (largely) for historical reasons, but again, they were part of the Scriptures used at the time - with no mention that they were any different from other books of the OT. The DSS didn't have the Apocrypha in a separate blue jar or anything.
As previously stated, they weren't "in there" in the beginning.
Previously "stated" perhaps, but not previously "demonstrated". It's a convenient denial on the part of some revisionist historians, but there haven't been any copies of scripture from prior to that point demonstrating a canon without those books.
Therefore the Jews never "stopped using them" - the fact is, they never considered them as inspired from day one. It's not that they changed their minds.
Interesting. Paul was certainly the best OT scholar credited with writing our NT Scriptures. Did you know that better than 94% of Paul's OT quotations come from the Septuagint? That every quotation in Acts does (thus is was the version the Apostles evangelized with)?
Interesting that you put such weight on Isaiah ("Jesus Himself quoted from Isaiah numerous times, and it is one of the most prophetic books in the entire OT.")- and I agree. Did you know that the NT quotes from Isaiah more times than any other book of the OT (Except Psalms of course). About 65 quotations of and better than 90% of them match up with the NT authors if you use the Septuagint, but only a third of them agree if you use the MT and only one verse from Proverbs is quoted in the NT in a way that could use the MT as the source while 100% of them fit the Greek. Maybe those NT authors didn't really know their Scripture? I guess it's possible, but I wouldn't go telling Gamaliel's greatest student that.
And I have no idea to what implied doctrinal texts you refer.
I don't happen to agree that any particular doctrine rests soley on verses found in the Apocrypha, but most protestants see support there for purgatory and prayers for the dead (among others) in there.