Jesus/God the same?

quote:

---

Where, exactly, is 'the divine name' used in the New Testament? Nowhere, I think

---

Just one of the many problems of using only a KJV, that translation only uses Jehovah only four times and they are all in the OT. But that doesn't mean Jehovah was not used by NT writers, it appears in quite a number of verses. You really need to get a better Bible.

quote:

---

do you ascribe to the JW position stating that Jesus is the first created rather than the Creator?

---

Yes, at Col. 1:15,16, RS: it states "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." What is being stated here is that Jesus as God's firstborn son, was created first and then God used him to create everything. There is also Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him ... 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, arkhe] of God's creation."'" once again showing that Jesus was created by God. Jesus' creation by God is also referred to at Proverbs 8:22-31 ""Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. . . . then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." Plus there are all those scriptures where Jesus is called the son of God which of course means he had a beginning, for to be a son he had to be born or created.

quote:

---

I have seen a greater amount of Orthodox literature that questions JW theology than I have cared to study. . . . While I will admit that some JW teachers such as yourself profess a grand grasp of scriptural interpretation, I cannot believe it.

---

You can hardly expect 'Orthodox literature' to support 'JW theology' now can you? or it wouldn't be
'Orthodox literature' any more. I have seen a number of pieces by former 'orthodox' leaders who became Jehovah's Witnesses, which is what tends to happens when they really look into things. Having checked out some of the 'Orthodox literature that questions JW theology' I have found them using scriptures known to be spurious to support their position, deliberately misinterpreting scriptures when they know that they don't support what they are saying. I have also found out right lies and slander used in such anti-JW literature. JW are not perfect people, they make their mistakes and have had to change their interpretation on some things from time to time, but that is one thing that sets them apart from other religions, they admit their mistakes and correct them. Which is also why the 'Orthodox' doctrinal arguments against them are so much hot air, for if someone did find an error, JW would change to the corrected viewpoint. Which is why it is pointless to have a scriptural debate with JW, they have spent decades molding their religion to the Bible, leaving nothing scriptural to be used against them. Which accounts for the type of counter arguments that are used, it is all they have left.

quote:

---

people free to disagree on scriptural interpretation. It all boils down to what a person believes and why.

---

The Bible interprets itself, by cross referencing many things are explained right in the Bible itself, if something isn't or at least isn't very clearly implied by the context, I see no reason for believing it.

quote:

---

JW teaching says that Jesus was resurrected a wholly spiritual, invisible being.
. . . Invisible? Not likely. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. And she could see Him.. . . Luke 24:39 . . . "See my hands and feet, that it I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." NASV Also, later on the beach Jesus asked for something to eat. He was given a piece of broiled fish. Why would a spirit need material food,

---

Can you see the angels? Angels are also invisible spirits, yet we have many accounts of them appearing and speaking with people and even eating food. "Do not forget hospitality, for through it some, unknown to themselves, entertained angels." Hebrews 13:2 Angels are capable of appearing as humans, this is apparently what Christ did in the account you referred to at Luke 24:39, in the parallel account in John it states. John 20:19-26 "although the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: "May YOU have peace." And after he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. . . . Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst" If Jesus had been raised up in a human body he would have had to knocked at the door, instead he twice miraculously appeared in the room from out of nowhere which he could not have done as a human being. There are also a number of verses which state that Jesus was raised as a spirit.
"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit "1 Peter 3:18 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom," 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 Now what Paul was saying that Jesus died as a man, but was raised up with a spiritual body and as he pointed out, flesh and blood cannot go to heaven, a resurrection as a spiritual being is necessary.

quote:

---

There is really no problem identifying where the tetragrammaton would appear in the original script but it doesn't appear in New Testament. If it did, the KJV translators would doubtless have rendered it as: "the LORD."

---

"for centuries, it was thought that this name did not appear in the Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles. But more recent discoveries definitely prove that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the Septuagint in those times. Thus Professor Howard of the University of Georgia states: "We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write [the Tetragrammaton] within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. ... It would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself." So he concludes: "Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre-Christian Jewish practice we can imagine that the NT text incorporated the Tetragram into its OT quotations." Professor Howard also notes that when the Tetragrammaton was removed from the Septuagint it was also removed from the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures appearing in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This change evidently took place at the beginning of the second centuryC.E. There is no question that the name Jehovah does belong in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as we find it in the New World Translation.""the Emphatic Diaglott, an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, first published in 1864. Repeatedly it uses "Jehovah" in its quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where this name appears, for a total of 18 times. For example, see Matthew 22:37, 44; Mark 12:29, 30; Luke 20:42".

quote:

---

All New Testament writers quote from the 'Apocrypha.' Here is a partial list of 'apocryphal' scriptures Paul quoted, along with their New Testament locations:

---

Below I have pasted your entire list and have added the Bible verses after and the Apocryphal verses (the ones I could find) before that is supposedly being quoted from. If the Paul was indeed quoting from the verses shown, you should be able to see a strong similarity in meaning and the context of both verses should be the same, or the quotes (if real), would have been taken out of context.Ascension of Isaiah 5:11-14 at Hebrews 11:37
"They were stoned, they were tried, they were sawn asunder, they died by slaughter with the sword, they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, while they were in want, in tribulation, under ill-treatment""For you provoked the who made you by sacrificing to demons and not to God."
Baruch 4:7 at 1 Corinthians 10:20
"No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons" (different context, first is referring to the Jews, the second to the gentiles.)Enoch 70:1-4 at Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well.""When he saw the blasphemies being committed in Judah and Jerusalem,"
1 Maccabees 2:6 at 2 Timothy 4:17
"but the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, that through me the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was delivered from the lion's mouth." (wrong verse?)"Eleazar, one of the foremost teachers of the Law, a man already advanced in years and of most noble appearance, had his mouth forced open, to make him eat a piece of pork."
2 Maccabees 6:18 to 7:42 at Hebrews 11:35
"Women received their dead by resurrection; but other [men] were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection." (wrong verse?)"Then the Jews, on hearing what the king had said, praised the manifest Lord God, King of kings, since this also was his aid that they had received."
3 Maccabees 5:35 at 1 Timothy 6:15
"This [manifestation] the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, [he] the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords," ( term king of kings occurs several times in the OT including at Daniel 2:47 "Lord of kings" where it is applied to God, so there is no reason to see a quote here. )"Thus the law says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or anything that is your neighbor's"
4 Maccabees 2:5 at Romans 7:7 "What, then, shall we say? Is the Law sin? Never may that become so! Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law; and, for example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: "You must not covet."" (both are quoting a common source )"upon all the living according to his gift; he lavished her upon those who love him."
Sirach 1:10 at 1 Corinthians 2:9 "But just as it is written: "Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, neither have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him."" ( totally different context, Sirach is talking about 'wisdom' while Paul is talking about future gifts from God.)"Do not say, "Who can have power over me?" for the Lord is slow to anger."
Sirach 5:3 at 1 Thessalonians 4:6
"that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter, because Jehovah is one who exacts punishment for all these things, just as we told YOU beforehand and also gave YOU a thorough witness." (almost no similarity at all, wrong verse?)"He makes room for every act of mercy; everyone receives in accordance with one's deeds."
Sirach 16:14 at Romans 2:6
"And he will render to each one according to his works:" (both referring to OT )"Dejected mind, gloomy face, and wounded heart come from an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees come from the wife who does not make her husband happy."
Sirach 25:23 at Hebrews 12:12
"Hence straighten up the hands that hang down and the enfeebled knees," (very little similarity, simular expressions occur in the OT)"For not everything is good for everyone, and no one enjoys everything."
Sirach 37:28 at 1 Corinthians 6:12
"All things are lawful for me; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful for me; but I will not let myself be brought under authority by anything." (slight similarity on a common sense truism.)"For grief may result in death, and a sorrowful heart saps one strength."
Sirach 38:18 at 2Corinthians 7:10
"For sadness in a godly way makes for repentance to salvation that is not to be regretted; but the sadness of the world produces death." (different context )"Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations."
Sirach 44:16 at Hebrews 11:5
"By faith Enoch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well." (both referring to Genesis)"Therefore the Lord assured him with an oath that the nations would be blessed through his offspring; that he would make him as numerous as the dust of the earth, and exalt his offspring like the stars, and give them an inheritance from sea to sea and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth. "
Sirach 44:21 at Galatians 3:8 "Now the Scripture, seeing in advance that God would declare people of the nations righteous due to faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: "By means of you all the nations will be blessed." and Hebrews 6:14 "saying: "Assuredly in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply you."" and 11:12 "Hence also from one [man], and him as good as dead, there were born [children] just as the stars of heaven for multitude and as the sands that are by the seaside, innumerable." (all verses are referring what was said in the OT, no evidence of quoting Ap.)"Let our might be the yardstick of right, since weakness argues its own futility."
Wisdom 2:11 at Romans 9:31
"but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to the law." (not even very simular)"For God created human beings to be immortal, he made them as an image of his own nature;"
Wisdom 2:23 at 1 Corinthians 11:7
"For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory" (both referring to Genesis)"They will judge nations, rule over peoples, and the Lord will be their king for ever."
Wisdom 3:8 at 1 Corinthians 6:2
"Or do YOU not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by YOU, are YOU unfit to try very trivial matters?" (different context)"Having won God's favour, he has been loved and, as he was living among sinners, has been taken away."
Wisdom 4:10 at Hebrews 11:5
"By faith Enoch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well." (both referring to Genesis)"he will put on justice as a breastplate, and for helmet wear his forthright judgement;"
Wisdom 5:18 at Ephesians 6:14 "Stand firm, therefore, with YOUR loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness," and 1 Thessalonians 5:8 "But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation;" (simular illustration, but used differently, breastplate is justice in one and righteousness in the other.)"And so I prayed, and understanding was given me; I entreated, and the spirit of Wisdom came to me."
Wisdom 7:7 at Ephesians 1:17
"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give YOU a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him;" (term "spirit of wisdom" is about the only thing in common here.)"For who is there to ask, "What have you done?"
Or who is there to disagree with your sentence?
Who to arraign you for destroying nations which you have created?
Who to confront you by championing the wicked?"
Wisdom 12:12 at Romans 9:20
"O man, who, then, really are you to be answering back to God? Shall the thing molded say to him that molded it, "Why did you make me this way?" (slight similarity at best)"subject to death, his impious hands can produce only something dead. He himself is worthier than the things he worships; he will at least have lived, but never they."
Wisdom 15:17 at Romans 9:21 "What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use?" (obviously not a quote)As any one can tell, in nearly all the cited verses here, there is little if any similarity. In some cases the verses are so dissimilar that the wrong verse may have been pasted in due to the different ways some of the apocryphal books are listed by some. In most we can see a passing similarity as would be expected when comparing any two books of any size. In a few of the cited verses we do see a common context and a strong similarity, but that is due to the fact that both sources are quoting from a common source, the Hebrew scriptures. At 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul was quoting from Isaiah 64:4 and; Galatians 3:8 and Hebrews 6:14, are referring to the promises made to Abraham recorded in Genesis. As one of my references states, "not one of the Christian Bible writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha," there are no apocryphal quotes in the NT. The apocryphal books were written too late to be considered part of the Hebrew inspirited scriptures and were not considered as such at the time of the NT. "The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth centuryB.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures" "neither the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews nor the historian Josephus nor Philo, leading first-century Jewish apologist, recognized any of the books of the Apocrypha as inspired."So all of the evidence is against Paul or other NT writers quoting from the Apocryphal books. Since you will of course disagree, take your best example and we can dissect it and I will show you or your source's errors.

quote:

---

He also quoted pagan authors whose words have now become part of the Bible:
Thais (218) by Menander at 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.)
de Oraculis by Epimenedes at Titus 1:2 (upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,)

---

The supposed quotes are so short that any similarity in wording is probably accidental. 1 Corinthians 15:33 is such a common sense truism I would expect it to be a recurring expression anyway.

quote:

---

God anointed Jesus to be king but that is only the first step.

---

Correct, Jesus was only anointed and not crowned as king while on earth. It was prophesied that the messiah would wait at God's right hand until he received his kingdom. Psalm 110:1 "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:"Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"" Jesus while on earth applied this scripture to himself, Matthew 22:43-44 "He said to them: "How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him 'Lord,' saying, 'Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet"'?" His death and later enthronement at a later time was predicted in OT prophecies.

quote:

---

No one ever finishes reading the tenth verse. They skipt it. They cut it off in mid sentence. If they were to the last part of the sentence, they might not convince us that this is talking about Jesus. Here is the last part of verse ten: quote: "... he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

---

*** ip-2 chap. 14 p. 210 Jehovah Exalts His Messianic Servant ***
'he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, . . . By means of his guilt offering, Jesus acquired "offspring." As "Eternal Father," he is able to give lifeeternal lifeto those who exercise faith in his shed blood. (Isaiah 9:6)" As you can see the offspring part is central to Christianity.

quote:

---

the oft quoted passage from Isaiah, purportedly a prophecy of the Messiah and probably the only place we are going to find a suggestion that the messiah will die for someones sin:

---

Did you forget about Daniel? "After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off." (Daniel 9:26) "The Hebrew word karath used here for "cut off" is the same word used for the death sentence under the Mosaic Law. Without a doubt the Messiah had to die. Why? Verse24 gives us the answer: "To finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite." So both Isaiah and Daniel predicted that the Messiah would die, and those prophecies are just two of the many that point to Jesus as being the Messiah. Below I have pasted a chart of some of the key ones and how they were fulfilled.SOME OUTSTANDING MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
PROPHECY EVENT FULFILLMENT
HIS EARLY LIFE
Isaiah 7:14 Born of a virgin Matthew 1:18-23
Jeremiah 31:15 Babes killed after his birth Matthew 2:16-18
HIS MINISTRY
Isaiah 61:1, 2 His commission from God Luke 4:18-21
Isaiah 9:1, 2 Ministry caused people to Matthew 4:13-16
see a great light
Psalm 69:9 Zealous for Jehovah's house John 2:13-17
Isaiah 53:1 Not believed in John 12:37, 38
Zechariah 9:9; Entry into Jerusalem on colt Matthew 21:1-9
Psalm 118:26 of an ass; hailed as king
and as the one coming in
Jehovah's name
HIS BETRAYAL AND DEATH
Psalm 41:9; 109:8 One apostle unfaithful; Acts 1:15-20
betrays Jesus and is
laterreplaced
Zechariah 11:12 Betrayed for 30 pieces Matthew 26:14, 15
of silver
Psalm 27:12 False witnesses used Matthew 26:59-61
against him
Psalm 22:18 Lots cast for his garments John 19:23, 24
Isaiah 53:12 Numbered with sinners Matthew 27:38
Psalm 22:7, 8 Reviled while dying Mark 15:29-32
Psalm 69:21 Given vinegar Mark 15:23, 36
Isaiah 53:5; Pierced John 19:34, 37
Zechariah 12:10
Isaiah 53:9 Buried with the rich Matthew 27:57-60
Psalm 16:8-11, ftn. Raised before corruption Acts 2:25-32;
13:34-37

quote:

---

There were several versions of these works. I have no information regarding which versions the scholars think Paul was quoting. Whether he quoted verbatim or hyperbolically is irrelevant. The point is that he considered them valid and utilized them in his ministry.

---

Regardless of which version or verbatim or not, if actually quoted, the context would be the same.Your contention that Paul considered the apocryphal as inspired is in complete contradiction with all the evidence. As I posted before.

quote:

---

one of my references states, "not one of the Christian Bible writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha," there are no apocryphal quotes in the NT. The apocryphal books were written too late to be considered part of the Hebrew inspirited scriptures and were not considered as such at the time of the NT. "The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth centuryB.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures"" "neither the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews nor the historian Josephus nor Philo, leading first-century Jewish apologist, recognized any of the books of the Apocrypha as inspired."

---

First there are no quotes in the Bible from the apocryphal books.

​

Second the apocryphal books were written 200 years after the OT was completed and closed.

​

Third in the time period of the NT writers, the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the OT or inspired. This is just another one of "doctorbill's fact free theories".

quote:

---

Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context, which doesn't bother you at all. In fact, no one has been able to convince you that it actually IS out of context.

---

That depends on whether or not you accept Jesus as the Messiah, if he was as most believe, then it was in context. We also have Jesus quoting from Isaiah and applying one of the prophecies to himself. The prophecies and their fulfillment I posted at the end of my earlier post, clearly identifies Jesus as the Christ. You seem to be rejecting him because he did not fulfill all the prophecies at once, which was not what was prophesied any how since he had to die and wait at his father's right hand until the appointed time, at that time, the rest of the prophecies will be fulfilled. So in this you have no logical basis for rejecting Jesus.

quote:

---

I expect that your reference is uniquely JW. My reference: The Greek New Testament, is a reference prepared for translators of all denominations (Except JW I suppose) and it asserts that they did quote the 'apocrypha.'

---

"The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a knowledge of them are to be found."-Britannic 1999 Ed. The Britannic by the way is not a JW publication and is prepared as a reference for everyone. What exactly does your reference state on this and who is the author and publisher?

quote:

---

1 Maccabees 2:60 (Greek Version), in reference to the prophet Daniel who: "was delivered from the mouth of lions." Paul's Greek uses the exact same phrase, adjusted only for first person and singular case, when he says, that he, "was delivered out of the mouth of the lion." 2 Timothy 4:17. The English here varies more than the Greek does (see to appreciate).

---

Paul obviously did not intend to quote from the verse at 1 Maccabees 2:60 since it is talking about Daniel and at 2 Timothy 4:17 Paul is talking about himself! The phrase "delivered from the lion's mouth" is hardly a unique phrase ( Psalm 22:21 "Save me from the mouth of the lion," ) and even if Paul did use a phrase from something he may have read, I don't see how that by itself implies in any way that he viewed the source as inspired. In Kings and Chronicles there are a number of references to other historical records that we do not have today, even if a copy of one were to turn up today, I doubt any one would be able to successfully claim those books inspired just because they are mentioned by name in the Bible. In order for a book to be accepted as inspired on the basis of being quoted, it would have to be quoted as an inspired source. In the NT we see many examples of this when the OT was quoted from, but at none of the supposed quotes from the Apocryphal books do we see such a reference. In fact, we fail to see any signs of a deliberate quotation, without such and considering the sentence fragments usually cited, a coincidence of simular wording is the most logical explanation. Also as already pointed out, it would be highly illogical to expect Paul to quote from books that were known in his day by Jews and Christians alike to be uninspired and not part of the inspired Hebrew scriptures.

quote:

---

Lack of evidence is not evidence. [ So you believe without evidence. ] I have searched out a number of the comparisons which the GNT asserts to be quotations and I must agree that they are far from what I would consider overwhelmingly convincing. I am at the same time aware that I do not have access to all the resources which exist; resources which were available to those emminent scholars who compiled this handy translators guide. But I have seen enough to convince me that there is substance to their claim and I must defer to their greater expertise.

---

Blind faith in men, but no faith in God or his word. I have looked at the supposed quotes as well and see no evidence of quoting, perhaps unintentional paraphrasing at most, but more probably just a chance similarity in wording.Your argument has run out of gas, all you have left is hot air. For to prove your point, you would need to show Paul quoting from an apocryphal book as an inspired source. Such a example doesn't exist in the Bible. You are unable to support your argument that Paul viewed an apocryphal book as inspired.

quote:

---

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst."
Sirach 24:21
Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.

---

First notice that the context is very different, In John, Jesus is speaking of the truth he brought that would fill the spiritual hunger of his listeners, while Sirach is taking about wisdom personified and that a person who learns some wisdom sees it's value and seeks more. Subject in the two verses is different and the effect is reversed. Jesus providing spiritual 'food and water' ties in with a number of verses along simular lines in the OT.
(Amos 8:11) "'Look! There are days coming,' is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'and I will send a famine into the land, a famine, not for bread, and a thirst, not for water, but for hearing the words of Jehovah." So there is no indication that John or Jesus was alluding to Sirach, rather there is a reference to a number of verses in the OT.

quote:

---

Luke 1:16/17
"And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, (17) And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."
Shirach 48:10
"At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore the tribes of Jacob."

---

It is no mystery as to what was being referred to in Luke, all you have to do is check the parallel account in Matthew and the source is named. Matthew 3:1-3 "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying: "REPENT, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: "Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.'" Luke was also referring to Malachi 4:5-6 "Look! I am sending to YOU people Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. And he must turn the heart of fathers back toward sons, and the heart of sons back toward fathers; in order that I may not come and actually strike the earth with a devoting [of it] to destruction."

quote:

---

Luke 1:52
"He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree."
Shirach 10:14
"The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, and enthrones the lowly in their place."

---

Both verses here are referring to what was stated in the OT. The first part of the verse from Luke may very well be referring to Daniel 4:37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are justice, and because those who are walking in pride he is able to humiliate." The King who is speaking here had been removed and restored to his throne by God, at the time this King was probably the most powerful ruler on earth. The second part of the verse refers to God favoring or raising up the humble. 2 Samuel 22:28 "And the humble people you will save; But your eyes are against the haughty ones, [that] you may bring [them] low." So both verses are referring to things said about Jehovah in the OT, there is nothing to suggest that Luke was referring to Shirach.The parallels some times found are not curious or even unexpected, once you understand that both are referring to the OT.

You really have run out of gas, you are just sputtering. Seems like we have exhausted your defence, you didn't really anything to use anyway. You put your faith in scholars who say what you want to hear and ignore the ones who say what you don't want to hear.

quote:

---

"They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; ... are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit...; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible...; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles."Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51"There is no question of any one's having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves."M. R.James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pages xi, xii.
"We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realize how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical."G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, page 228.
"It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added to-day to the Canon."K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, page24. .

---

Paul was well acquainted with the apocryphal books, he warned against such things in many of his letters. Titus 1:1 "paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth." 2 Timothy 4:4 "and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories." 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge."" Paul and his generation regarded the apocryphal books as Jewish fables and false stories, which is why he never cited them as a source. One of the key reasons Paul had such a negative view of the apocryphal books is stated at; 1 Timothy 4:7 "But turn down the false stories which violate what is holy" much of what is taught in the apocryphal is in conflict with inspired scripture, which clearly marks the apocryphal as being apocryphal. Paul warned against wasting time on such things because; 1 Timothy 1:3-4 "Just as I encouraged that you . . . might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith." there is nothing spiritually to be gained from false stories. Of course there was an even greater danger of course; Colossians 2:8 "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;" and that is what has happened to you. You think you have become wise, and see things clearly, however your spiritual condition is described at; Revelation 3:17 "Because you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked," I know you say you are happy as you are, but your being spiritually blind is why you are fumbling about in the dark tripping over things that are clearly seen by those with spiritual vision. You think you come up with great issues that disprove the inspiredness of the Bible, while those of us with eyes see that you have simply fallen into another obvious pitfall, the solutions are simple but you are too blind to see them. When someone tries to tell the solution to your problem, it doesn't make any sense to you, because you have rejected the light of God's word. All these things you come up with are simple little things, but trying to describe them to you is sometimes like trying to describe colors to someone who is not only blind but also refuses to believe that there are such things as colors to begin with.

On scholars opinions, you can probably find one to support any position if you look long enough, which is why it is not wise to believe something just because a "scholar" states it. It is necessary to consider the overall majority viewpoint of scholars in general when considering such opinions and it must be remembered that even the mainstream view can still be wrong sometimes, which is why it is always best to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. The mainstream opinion on the matter of the NT quoting the apocrypha is that there are no direct quotes. I disagree with that, looking at the evidence myself it is my opinion that the supposed indirect quotes are accidental word matches due in large part to a common cultural and literary background of the respective writers. The 'indirect quotes' which seem to be apocryphal references can be viewed as such if only the words are looked at by themselves, which is the trap it appears that some of the scholars have fallen into, looking at the meaning of the words it is clear that the NT and the apocryphal are cut from two very different cloths. It would make no sense for the NT writers to use as inspired sources books which were in conflict with the things they were teaching, it would be like a mainstream respected geologist quoting from the book "The Genesis Flood" as a reference, no matter if there were common phrases used by both it would be ridiculous to expect a genuine quotation. The NT writers could have quoted the historical events related in some of the apocrypha when such were correct, without implying anything about the rest of the book, but they didn't seem to do even that. What we find instead is a common word usage here or there, or a common reference to events in the OT, such occurrences are probably coincidental and considering the intend of the NT writers they must indeed be unintended.As for showing you the contradictions between the Bible and the Apocrypha. it is a lengthy list and much of it you will not understand since you are spiritually blind. Some of the simpler points is that the apocrypha books are not always very historically accurate, some are better than others and are useful as historical sources, others can only be regarded as fiction due to their gross historical inaccuracy. Many of the events in the apocrypha are foolish stories and are obviously fiction. Then there are apocrypha statements that contradict biblical teachings and doctrines, the Bible states one thing and the apocrypha states something else. On a side point, some of the Catholic doctrines which are non biblical are taught in the apocrypha which accounts for the church's more favorable attitude toward such books.On the fact that in the first century the Jews did not view the apocrypha as inspired is supported by a number of historical sources which point out that the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews, the historian Josephus and Philo, did not view the apocrypha as inspired books. The early church fathers of the first few centuries viewed the apocrypha as secondary to scripture and only much later when many non biblical doctrines had been adopted by the church were the apocrypha books given biblical status by some. The adoption of the apocrypha was part of the falling way from the truth that was predicted to happen after the death of the apostles.

quote:

---

1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. Please show specific instances where these books may be called "Jewish fables" or shown to be written by, "men who turn themselves away from the truth."

---

On 1 Maccabees "the Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it "history is written from the human standpoint." Its author seems to have been a Sadducee, as he ignores the crimes the chief priests committed during that time, thus betraying his lack of objectivity. Another authority excuses the "few historical and geographical inaccuracies," but divine history does not thus err. More than that, the prophetic, miraculous and the Messianic elements are entirely lacking as is also any reference to the resurrection hope. The writer even studiously avoids naming the Creator as either "God" or "Jehovah.""On Ecclesiasticus; "Ecclesiasticus has the twofold distinction of being the largest of the Apocryphal books and of having a definitely known author, one Jesus the son of Sirach. It has a lie in its very first Prologue (written by another), for it claims that this Jesus "was not less famous for wisdom and learning" than was King Solomon. The author himself, however, in the second Prologue apologizes: "Pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have labored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue have not the same force in them." Actually an apologetic self-justification.
How obviously this book is of man rather than of God can be further seen by its worldly wisdom and, in particular, by the writer's low opinion of womankind. In contrast to God's Word, which squarely blames the man Adam for our woes, he says: "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." "Give me ... any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." "All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman.""I did some checking on the web and found the followinig web sites with coments on the apocrypha which I thought bear well on the subect.

quote:

---

1. Jews did not (and still do not) regard the Apocrypha as Scripture
2. The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha
3. Until 1548 (at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent), the Apocrypha had a secondary status, and was not regarded as true Scripture. (And the Eastern Orthodox Church still gives the secondary status to the Apocrypha. See Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church", Penguin Books, 1963, p.208-209).
4. Therefore the Protestant Reformers (1520's, 1530's) were clarifying the historical position of the early church when they excluded the Apocrypha.
[The early Christian church was predominantly Greek-speaking so used the LXX as their OT, however, while the NT extensively contains about 250 quotaations from the OT (usually using the LXX), it contains _NO_ quotations from the Apocrypha Reference: New Bible Dictionary, 2nd Edition (Ed. J.D.Douglas, N.Hillyer; England:IVP, 1982), p. 1005 "Quotations (in the New Testament)", by E.E.Ellis, Ph.D, (Research Professor of New Testament Literature, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Jersey)].

​

http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/pbotapoc.html

​

Recognizing the fact that the Septuagint was probably available to both Jesus and his disciples, it becomes even more remarkable that there are no direct quotes from any of the Apocryphal books being championed for canonicity. Jesus makes clear reference to all but four Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon, but he never directly refers to the apocryphal books.
The Old Testament Apocrypha Controversy - The Canon of Scripture

​

3. The New Testament quotes all but seven of the Old Testament books. (Obadiah, Nahum, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Some list only Esther, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon.)

​

The Apocrypha, those books included in the Roman Catholic Canon, were never quoted in the New Testament. The Apocrypha was accepted as part of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.

​

Welcome open.org - BlueHost.com
But the New Testament writers never quote these additional writings as Scriptures.
Page Not Found - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha
Protestants give numerous reasons for rejecting these additional books:
1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.
2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.
3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did notAthanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.
4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.
Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. However, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation.
Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear.
5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.
6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).
Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.
7. The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.
In Christ's time, there were twenty-two books in the Old Testament, but the content was identical to the thirty-nine books in our present Old Testament (several of the books in the Hebrew Bible were combined, which accounts for the different figure). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles was the last. On at least one occasion, Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)
In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.

​

How Many Books Are in the Bible? | Bible.org

---

As you should be tell, many of the points I have been making to you are referred to in the above sites. The apocrypha is obviously not inspired and is not part of the Bible and was not directly quoted as an inspired source and was more probably not quoted at all by the NT.

quote:

---

By what authority was the New Testament added to the sacred canon?

---

By the authority of the holy spirit. The books were selected before 200 AD, and each book was included based on it being in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible. The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit had many miraculous abilities such as resurrecting the dead, and one of the gifts of the spirit was the ability was being able to discern whether or not something was inspired. 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit speech . . . discernment of inspired utterances," So in the early Christian congregation the selection of the books of the NT proceeded directly under the action of the holy spirit. Through the holy spirit they knew if a book was actually inspired by holy spirit or not. Even today without the aid of a gift of the holy spirit of discernment, we can still see that the right choices were indeed made when we examine the books that were included and those that were excluded. For those of us with spiritual discernment, we can recognise the inspired ness of the Bible when we read it while the apocrypha books read like cheap trash, the difference is like night and day. This is part of the problem I was referring to about you being spiritually blind, you have no idea of what I am talking about, you can't see the different, but remember just because you can't see it doesn't mean no one else can. If you wanted to debate the finer points of string theory would have to first really study the theory so you could discern the differences in the various theories and see why the differences matter and what effect they would have, it is simular with spiritual things, being spiritually blind you can't tell the difference between the Bible books and the apocrypha books which to those of us who can see these things, it is so obvious. It is really ridiculous watching you repeatedly walk into walks all the while refusing to even try opening your eyes. You can certainly keep your eyes closed if you wish, but offering your self as a guide is silly in the extreme.

quote:

---

[The apocrypha ... is not part of the Bible ...] Not a part of your Bible. But it was a part of the Bible, in Jesus day. No, not the Official Bible of the Temple authorities; but the Popular Bible, the Bible of the People, the Septuagint. Most people could read Greek in those days. Most Jews could not read Hebrew in those days. If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew, he would have had no reason to get excited about Chapter 7 verse 14.

---

At the time the writers of the NT lived, the apocrypha books were not part of the Septuagint, they were not added until about 180 AD which was after the NT was completed. I found a web site that had excellent information on this subject."Josephus' own testimony to the canon, given above, denies to the Septuagint the presence of the Apocrypha, at least in his day (before 100 AD). Josephus was a Greek-speaking Jew who presumably used this very translation about whose preparation he wrote. Further, we know that many Jewish intellectuals in that day, including Philo and Josephus, considered the Septuagint Greek translation to be inspired in and of itself. Yet, Josephus pointedly denies the apocryphal books a place in the canon of the scriptures which he gives, as does Philo through his complete and utter disuse of these books. . . .
The other major translation of this period was that of Theodotion (c. 180 AD), also an Ebionite, but one from Ephesus with only a marginal knowledge of Hebrew . Theodotion's work cannot really be properly called a translation, but rather a revision of the then-existing Greek Old Testament. Theodotion's Greek Old Testament was widely used by Christians after it was produced, and its reading of Daniel eventually replaced the older Septuagintic translation of that book . It is interesting to note that, unlike other Greek Old Testament translations to that time, Theodotion's revision contained certain of the apocryphal books, these being apocryphal additions to Job, and also the additions to Daniel .
Thus, it would seem that the first introduction of the Apocrypha into the Christian scriptures arose from Theodotion's revision of the Septuagint, and that it was from thence that we see the Apocrypha gain wider respect among Christians."
http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html#lxx3rdcI recommend that you check out the historical background on Theodotion's translation and why the Apocrypha was included. As I have been saying, and as the historical evidence proves, the Jews and the early Christians did not view the Apocrypha as inspired. It was only later in history as they fell away from the teachings of Christ and adopted non biblical beliefs, that the Apocrypha books began to gain acceptance. Hence the acceptance of the Apocrypha happened many years afterwards, and it was not viewed as inspired at the time of the writing of the NT.

quote:

---

If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew . . .

---

I don't see why he couldn't considering he is believed to have first written his gospel in Hebrew and later translated it into Greek.."Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew. For instance, Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuriesC.E.) said that "the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue." (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941) And Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuriesC.E.) stated in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.... Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E.C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8,9.)"

quote:

---

[the apocrypha books read like cheap trash'] And how is that cheap trash different from the cheap trash in your Bible?

---

You can't see the difference because you are blind spiritually, due no doubt in large part to your lack of appreciation of spiritual things as demonstrated by your comment. "But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually." 1 Corinthians 2:14 As long as you have such a bad attitude you will never be able to understand.