"The Hebrew canon is irrelevant. The Apostles used Septuagint as reference in over 90% of the cases."
Incredible. Jesus cites and authenticates the Hebrew Canon (the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms) exclusively and that is irrelevant. The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic. The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers.
Origen was the scholar who influenced Augustine's allagorical interpretation of scripture. But you did not mention Rufinus' or Augustine's distinguishing the Hebrew Canon from the apocryphal books, or the fact that in the early fourth century they were not part of the canon catalogues of the mentiond men and councils.
Your quote from +Luke is incomplete, and suggests a different meaning. In post #9,099 you state:
"Jesus authenticated the Hebrew Canon when He said "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the 'Law of Moses, the Prophets (these included the historical books) and the psalms'concerning Himself" (Luke 24:44)
But that's not what the NT says. The actual text says:
"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
In the original Greek language the "about Me" stands out because it is at the very end of the sentence and cannot be overlooked.
In other words, Christ did not set or authenticate the Hebrew canon, but merely said that those parts of the Hebrew Scripture that are about Him must be fulfilled. Just those parts. And that does not "un-authenticate" the rest!
The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic. The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers
Now, that is incredible! In over 90% of the cases, the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, including allusions to events found only in the so-called deterocanonical books.
Origen was the scholar who influenced Augustine's allagorical interpretation of scripture
Origen influenced an awful lot of people before they recognized his heresy. +Gregory of Nissa was certainly one of them, sharing Origen's teaching that all the people (including those in hell) will eventually be saved.
That doesn't mean that the Church fell for his error. Individual fathers, for sure, at least for a time being, but the Church as a whole, never. Which is why we never trust one's individual interpretation of anything no matter how much they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But you did not mention Rufinus' or Augustine's distinguishing the Hebrew Canon from the apocryphal books, or the fact that in the early fourth century they were not part of the canon catalogues of the mentiond men and councils
I suppose you are referring to [Tyrannius] Rufinus the monk, a faithful follower of Origen, who was eventually summoned by the Pope to Rome and who weaseled his way out, after renouncing his theories based on Origen.
When exactly, at what stage of his religious growth) did +Augustine distinguish the difference? He certainly wrote a lot, confessed a lot, but he also retracted a lot. Most importantly, the good Saint always deferred to the Catholic Church, regardless of what he wrote.
And in what way did he distinguish the Hebrew canon from deuterocanonical books?
+Athanasius who had so much to do with the Christian canon personally considered only some deterocanonical books as inspired, not all.
The Eastern (Greek) side of the Church did not include the revelation of John into the Canon until after the 9th century, while the local Council of Rome, in the 5th century, did.
The fact is that deuterocanonical books are quoted, or the events found only in them are made known in the NT by the Apostles, that they were part of the primitive Church teachings, that they were included in various editions of the Christian Canon and have been used for doctrinal purposes in the life of the Church from the beginning until today.
How exactly does He do that? Because He cites a few sayings from what WE NOW recognize as Scriptures? Does He take aside the Sadducees and tell them that they are wrong to accept ONLY the Torah? Does Jesus lay out the entire Canon? Does Jesus quote from EVERY book of the Protocannonicals? You are being anachronistic to think that Judaism was some monolithic organization where everyone already agreed on what WAS Scripture. The Essenes had their own ideas - and the Pharisees did as well. Apparently, there wasn't a demand to lay out the Canon until after the Fall of Jerusalem.
The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic.
It is telling that they considered it the authentic word of God when they cite FROM it, CALLING it the Word of God. My, how you change your standards in the same paragraph. Matthew cites from the Septuagint Isaiah, calling it Scriptures, and it is not Scriptures? WOW.
The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers.
Allusions? How about word-for-word citations? When Matthew records the Septuagint version of Is 7:14, rather than the Hebrew version, calling it the Word of God, you totally disregard that? Please.
Regards