Baloney! It just goes on and on. The Jews of Jerusalem did not accept the ALL the books found in the Septuagint as being what was their accepted canon, at the time of Christ.
I write page after page of refutations (but do not post them) for the refutations themselves touch upon too much for to be included in shortened commentary, as they must, for the argument of Romish apologetic is so frequently one of implication and therefores based upon questionable if not faulty premise.
I said they were in the Septuagint. And there are references to the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonical books, in the New Testament.
If we wished to include in our canon and teach only that which is acceptable to Judaism, we would be Jews. There was a split, we have different canons and teaching about the interpretation of scripture, both old and new testaments. This is what makes us Christians.
thanks for your reply.
I think I see where we’re talking past each other. It is in the difference between acceptable Jewish writing and canonical books. I mean to describe the Septuagint as acceptable to Jews not as comprising their canon. Later, parts of the Septuagint were not acceptable to Jews, they were removed in this sense, what was acceptable changed.
The Church takes the Septuagint as canon, Jews finished their canon, as far we know, around 100 A.D. We’re talking about Rabbinical Jews and this excludes the Torah of course which is centuries earlier.
I do equate the Septuagint with the Hebrew canon and hope this clarifies.