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.
Sounds like a strawman to me. The issue was the Apocrypha, not the other books of the OT.
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.
My point is, the reason Christians consider those 39 books to be canonical is because God had already given those scriptures to the Jews. Nobody said that nonbelieving Jews should define doctrine for Christians (another strawman?); what was said was that the Apocryphal books - contemporary writings to the rest of the OT - were never considered inspired by the Jews. Why did the RCC decide that they were?
Really? There's no evidence that I've seen supporting that.
Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?
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.
Do a google search for Jewish canon. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a general consensus on what they considered inspired and how their canon has been established.
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)?
Did Paul quote from the Apocrypha? If not, what's your point? I'm not denying the validity of the Septuagint translation, just the consideration that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.
Interesting that you put such weight on Isaiah ...
I only used it as an example because you brought it up.
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.
Hmm, I thought Catholics found support for those there as well. I believe that prayers for the dead are found in - correct me if I am wrong - 2 Maccabees 12?, and I think that verses from Corinthians, IIRC, are cited for purgatory. Don't know that I brought either of those issues up. But then again, I don't even remember what got us started on this... :)