Let’s look at a few of those quotes...
Mt 6.7: “7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”
and Sirach 7.14: “Thrust not yourself into the deliberations of princes, and repeat not the words of your prayer.”
That isn’t a quote. That is a momentarily parallel thought. Compare it to a quote like:
“17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
“He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases.”
See the difference?
Next, Matt 23.37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
4 Ezra 1: “30: I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.”
How about Ruth 2 “The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”
There are a ton of references to God sheltering us with his wings...now compare that to a quote: “”Have you not read this Scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;”
Matt 27.43: “43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
Do you REALLY consider that to be a scripture quote? REALLY?
And you consider yourself a Google-hit scholar?
:>)
I already went thru about a dozen “Apocrypha quotes” from a list of 80-some...they were all like this.
What I wrote was specific: “the absence of any quotes of authority”
No “Scripture says”, or “Have you not read” - just things like, ‘many died as martyrs’ - as if that concept was only found in the Apocrypha!
I would add that Paul used pagan prophets for illustration: “12 Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”
But notice he did NOT say, We know Cretians are bad, for have you not read, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”.
But I also noticed you said nothing of Jude's verses from the Book of Enoch, quoted as if they were scripture, because they are quoted verbatim. I am sure there are other instances to be found of similar nature.
I am just too lazy to look for them in my notes because I am "over the hump," so to say, with my infatuation with what I once believed wholeheartedly was the pristine word of God, since that's what I was told by very nice people (who also told me about Sanata Claus and then admitted they lied about him).
When you have discovered a thousand reasons to shatter this belief, what will one more do? So, you leave digging to others who are not there—yet. But if you dig, you will get there, sooner or later (and it's quite liberating once you get over the anger). You can be certain of that. Remember: Bible is for believers of truth, not seekers of truth. If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.
Now, remember Luke? Luke 4:4 exists in two versions, one of which is a misquote of Deuteronomy 8:3 (and God would not misquote himself, would he?). Or, take Hebrews 8, the author outright changes the OT quote and excludes the tribe of Judah towards the end (for a good Christian reason), and sandwiches New Testament text (!) into the OT prophesy, making it look as if it were part of the OT prophesy.
In fact the entire supposedly "quote" from God (Heb 8:8-13) is an alphabet soup of cherry-picked verses from Jeremiah, Exodus, Luke, 2 Cor, Isaiah and Hebrews (using itself as reference!). Neat, huh?
Many of the OT quotes in the NT are either incorrect or actually made up of several cherry-picked and often unrelated OT verses, yet you don't terat them with the same razor you apply to parallels frawn or quoted from "apocryphal" verses.
But the "apocrypha" are no exception. It's your choice to believe one and reject the other. That's the only citerium that makes some books 'holy" an dother profane; you. And how perfect oruniversally true or divine is that?
Once this is realized, one also realizes the degree of manipulation that took place not only in creating scriptures but also in deriving doctrine from them, and using the same to justify itself.
But the fact is that Christians used the "apocrypha" from the earliest days onward, period. The rabbis at Jamnia (AD 90) rejected Christians scriptures (Septuagint, Epistles and Gospels) not only because they were written in Greek vs Hebrew (and that's another bogus argument, because parts of the OT are written in Aramaic and not in Hebrew and are acceptable to the rabbis—conveniently), but because they also used books the Pharisees did not use, i.e. the "apocrypha."
So, then, whose side are you on? The Apostolic Church of the 1st century or the Pharisees? It was not until Jerome (early fifth century), who was brainwashed by Christ-hating Pharisee rabbis, that anyone in the Church raised objections to the so-called OT apocrypha as being part of the Christian canon, and after him no one until the Lutheran Deformation.
So, the entire Church, starting with the Gospel writers and Paul were in apostasy until Luther stablished "true" Christianity based on, what a surprise, that pristine document called the Bible!?