Did Jesus Christ every mention that there were errors in the Septuagint?
If someone claims to base what they believe on the Scripture and does not accept the entire Old Testament as it was in the Septuagint, the only logical fallacy is their claim that they base their beliefs only on the Scripture.
Were there parts of the Scripture in common use and quoted from by Christ and the Apostles that shouldn't have been included in the Septuagint, Christ would have pointed that out the same way He pointed out that useless and erroneous laws had been added to the legitimate law.
All the noise about why it's correct to use any subset of the Septuagint is just that, noise. It's intended to disguise the fact that Luther couldn't get around various things in those Scriptures so he threw them out. When he couldn't get away with throwing out the book of James, he altered other portions of the Scripture to suit himself and contradict James.
Everyone who accepts the Luther subset of Scripture is doing the same thing Eve did while they claim to be trying to follow Christ. They may well want to follow Christ and not even realize what they've fallen into because it is a very strong delusion. They also may still come to Christ on His terms rather than their own, but they're starting out with a huge self-imposed roadblock between them self and the Grace Christ wants to pour out on them.
More often than not, however, those who cannot accept the entire Bible rather than only the Luther Subset end up modifying Scripture to suit their own desires and therefore worship their own, Most High and Holy Self rather than Christ. The reason they end up that way is because they've accepted the idea that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Scripture intact and was rescued by the likes of Wycliffe and Luther. In other words, they accept the intellect of men that seems right to them but which in reality leads to destruction.
That's not surrendering to Christ, that's bargaining with Christ based on personal intellect and what the Self accepts as appealing to the Self.
Over books in the Bible that the RCC didn't even agree on until the 1400's? That's not exactly a *huge* roadblock. Heck, it's not even a roadblock. Especially since the Catholic church doesn't consider Scripture, but rather itself, as authoritative.
It appears that we ALL are ignoring the elephant in the room: namely the THROWN OUT BOOKS.
So; I ask one and all, "Just what important theological concepts are contained in those missing pieces and what are the ramifications for NOT having them?"
Instead of actually interacting with the evidence that refutes you, which will result in reiterating of some of it, you resort to psychological assertions, and charges which all too well apply to Rome.
Rather than accept the OT Hebrew canon which the Prot canon reflects (as the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms), you must argue that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and contained all the apocryphal book at that time, but which you cannot prove and is contrary to evidence.
Furthermore, since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, was found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then you are bound to accept them as well. More on problems here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3956
And if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then as said, in principle this leads to affirming even more books which are not in the RC canon.
Moreover, if disagreeing with Rome on the canon is such a cardinal issue, then you must also attack the Eastern and Greek Orthodox in like manner as you attack us, as they also differ with Rome, both invoking Tradition.
In addition, rather than us denying that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Scripture intact thru Rome, we expose the fact that she did not, but failed to provide an indisputable canon of Scripture till over 1400 years after the last book was penned, and thus doubt and dispute among scholars continued into Trent. (Again, see http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/ancients_on_scripture.html#2, or do i need to post it?)
But the Holy Spirit established writing as Scripture without Rome and her supposedly assuredly infallible magisterium, and that as in the first century, discerning believers also came to realize which books were wholly of God versus those which were not.
Finally, rather than us operating out of a Most High and Holy Self government, we do not claim assured infallibility, but must manifest the truth as to commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God in seeking to persuade souls, while it is Rome which has autocratically decreed that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and content-based criteria.
And in operating out of sola ecclesia, in which the church and its leadership are supreme, not Scripture, she joins cults which do the same (LDS, WTC. etc.), while confusion abounds in RCM due to lack of content or clarity, as few things are infallibly defined, and RCs have no infallible interpreter of their authority (and do not even know how many things have been infallibly defined), while (as often demonstrated) they have great liberty to wrest Scripture in attempting to support things which actually have their basis in traditions of men, not Scripture.
The more you deny it, then more it will be documented.