Thank you for spending all of that time wasting our time and so now is needed Occam’s Razor: you have provided the minority opinion and provided outdated information from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s concerning the Septuagint. Septuagint books from the Tanakh, but not the Torah, were quoted in the 3rd and 2 century BC, genius, and archaeological evidence shows the Septuagint was used in Synagogues all over the Mediterranean and eventually into Palestine.
Again, thanks, but no thanks for your outdated, sectarian “information.”
Now...
The Dead Sea Scrolls have destroyed the Masoretic Text, dozens and dozens and dozens of times it disagrees with the MT, aligns more with the Septuagint, and the MT is the quintessential Christ-denying text and compiled by deceived Christ-deniers with an agenda carrying on the leaven of the Pharisees, and this is shown as the DSS preserves the originals for many Messianic scriptures that point to Jesus Christ and the Paleo Hebrew and Jewish scholars pre AD show that Shem is not Melchizedek.
And for just one example concerning the Deuterocanon, Judith was considered to be inspired scripture at the Council of Nicaea, the Deuterocanon was reaffirmed (learn what that word means) at the Council of Trent, as the canon of scriptute was fixed in 382 AD at the Council of Rome, the 393 Council of Hippo, and the 397 Council of Carthage. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses...”
God bless!
Excellent post, you skewered Daniel’s argument.
You mean contrary to what I referenced, you want to argue that books from the Deuteros were quoted in the 3rd and 2 century BC, without substantiation. The Tanakh consist of three divisions--the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, and you can only presume, contrary to what I proved, that these included the Deuteros, and that the Palestinian canon - which is what Christ most likely would have referenced as Scripture - contained them.
"eventually into Palestine."
"Eventually:" confirming my point.
"The Dead Sea Scrolls have destroyed the Masoretic Text, "
So you contend, however, that is not the issue what I am arguing, though seeing as the NT eclectically references line up to both sources, even if mostly those from LXX mss, then this is not an either/or issue. The NT determines what is Scripture in this case. Note also that mere correspondence of thought btwn the NT and an ancient sources or even a quote from one does not necessarily mean the latter is Scripture, versus being called just that, or by an authoritative term such as "it is written."
And seeing as this is summer here in NE, I do not intend to spend more hours on this issue (with my stiff arthritic fingers) than I have already in the past.