Jesus/God the same?

No, I don't think. Good grief. Why would I think that? I only believe in one God.Did the attributes of Wisdom in Proverbs come from a previous religion that had many gods and goddesses? Maybe. I don't think it's likely, though, because Proverbs was written down by a monotheistic religion, and there's nothing in those passages that require Wisdom to be a god or goddess. Everything said about Wisdom applies quite well to wisdom in and of itself without it needing to be from some goddess.And the fact is, Wisdom is a feminine word, so the pronouns used about it must be feminine, too--in Hebrew, anyway. The translator would be just as accurate using "it" rather than "she" in those passages. That's not sexist, that's simply factual. I don't think this is true at all. The earliest Christians read the Scriptures symbolically all the time. Proverbs was part of their Scriptures. How could they not apply a passage like Proverbs 8 to the Son of God. Gender was absolutely no issue to them. They knew wisdom was a feminine word, and they would not therefore have assumed that wisdom was a female being. That's a purely English convention. They read "it" where you read "she." They had no way of knowing that you or I would think the passage said "she."

Christians believe Jesus is God, yes? If Jesus is God, and his father is God, then there are two Gods, at least. An individual wrote those lines, not a religion. Besides, there was never a time when the people of Israel could be characterized as uniformly monotheistic. The state religion lobbied for it. Ruling councils legislated for it. And kings alternately enforced and/or repealed such laws. All of which would have been unnecessary if the people were already compliant. Furthermore, the prophets were quick blame every national misfortune on the nation's inability, or unwillingness to serve Jehovah properly.So, rather than assume a particular religious bias for biblical authors, we should look to discover them through their work. You mean like: being the LORD's constant companion since before the universe began? You mean like: her assertion:You mean like: all those things you want to give Jesus? So why does it need to be from some god? Jeeeeezuz!! I can't believe you wrote this. I hope you're not teaching this subject in Sunday School!Have you actually read the text?Chapter 8 is written in the first person of Lady Wisdom. She characterizes herself as the LORD's first and constant companion, created before the universe began, with him every step of the way. You don't create such a character, an escort for Jehovah, and then call her an "it." Lady Wisdom; (chapter 8) is immediately preceded by Merry Hooker; (chapter 7), a juxtaposition clearly intended to contrast the two. In the introduction to that story, (chapter 7) the author writes: The writer clearly intended for us to perceive Lady Wisdom as female.If the sacred language employs feminine nouns and pronouns, who are you to disagree? But if you are correct, then maybe it would be just as accurate to call God a "She"? Were the ancient Hebrews NOT sexist? db

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

I'm not your typical Christian. I'm a new species. Evolution and all, you know.I believe in one God, the Father, although a favorite author of mine, Tertullian (one of the Catholic fathers) didn't mind saying he believed in two Gods, and Justin used to say there is one unbegotten God and one begotten God.Either way, one God or two, because even I believe God has a Son, obviously my way of thinking wouldn't be prone toward feeling the need for making room for goddesses. You're right. I can't argue with that. I don't think this follows. I'm not talking about assumption; I'm just acknowledging that their work is not the only thing we know about them. Dismissing what we know about authorship, time of authorship, what the nation was like, etc., is not a good idea, and I don't think you're suggesting that, but I wasn't, either.I don't think Proverbs gives any internal or external indications that it's thoughts come from thoughts about goddesses. Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I, and the Pre-Nicene Christians, believed some things about Jesus already. Proverbs lines up nicely with those things, and responding to those similarities, we apply them to him, even suggesting they are prophecy.If you don't begin with things you already believe about Jesus, looking at Proverbs only, then Proverbs looks like Wisdom being personified, a very typical prose and poetry device, taught in high school even, not necessarily implying thoughts of a goddess at all. It doesn't. Did you think I was only saying that out of some opposition to goddesses because they're female? I'm married to a female. I have two incredibly wonderful female daughters. I like females. If I had a choice of George or Barbara Bush for president, I'd surely vote for Barbara. I can't wait for the first female president. I'm terribly curious to see who it will be.I simply don't think Proverbs was meant to be about goddesses (or gods). I think it was simply personifying wisdom.I can't say it's impossible. You might be right. I just don't think there's any evidence that it's likely. LOL. In a sense, you're right, but I'm not backing down, because only in a sense. There in chapter 8, the writer definitely personifies Wisdom, and in chapter 8, and in other passages, an English writer should properly use he or she.However, you're missing my point. When you say, "You don't create such a character, an escort for Jehovah, and then call her an 'it,'" you are making a statement only an English speaker could make. Germany is giving in to the language influences of today, and they refer to Fraulein's and Maedchen's as "she." However, it can't have been more than a few decades since all Fraulein's would have been referred to as "it," the neuter pronoun. That wasn't sexist. It happened because of the "-lein" and the "-chen" at the end of the word. It required a neuter article and thus a neuter pronoun. No gender offense meant, and Frau's and Maed's were both feminine. A child, "Kind," in German, is still an it, whether male or female.I was just trying to point out that "she," linguistically, doesn't have to make Wisdom a female. And being alive doesn't mean you don't get called an "it," at least in German. It's only offensive to us. Pronouns don't carry the same gender connotations in other languages that they do in English. He had no choice, because Wisdom is a feminine word. That's my point. He wasn't necessarily making her female, just linguistically feminine in gender, and I'm trying to point out that's not the same thing. In German, if you want to personify coffee, then it would have to be a he. (Well, not have to, but it would make sense and be easier.) I'm not disagreeing. I'm simply trying not to put my English speaking prejudices and thoughts into my interpretation of a Hebrew text. Yes, partly on the basis of what I'm saying people do argue that God isn't necessarily male in sex, just masculine in linguistic gender. I don't agree with them, but I do agree that the language allows them their point.I want to add here that my whole comment about language and gender was a mere one sentence add on, in parentheses, at the end of a post. It was hardly something I was making a case about, just explaining why there was no gender problem in applying Prov 8 to Jesus, which is one of the main reasons my American Christian friends wouldn't even consider it. I would call them sexist. It sounds like you're making a point, though, and I feel really dense for not getting it.

First of all I wish to commend you on what surely required a considerable investment of your time and effort. That said, and wishing to keep this from snowballing into great clumps of research and rebuttal, I offer this brief, and probably unsatisfying, reply. 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.BTW: It wouldn't be the first time a preacher took something out of context.If you have a problem with the way Paul quotes, condenses or summarizes the 'apocryphal' scriptures, then you will also have a problem with the way he and others, quote, condense or summarize the non-apocrphal scriptures. I believe you mean, All the evidence JW's will allow to be called evidence. I've dissected things with you before and doing it again doesn't appeal to me. Last time you couldn't see the frog and you couldn't smell the formaldehyde; and frankly, I don't trust your skill with a scalpel.db

I wrote:

quote:

---

The writer clearly intended for us to perceive Lady Wisdom as female.

---

To which you responded: There were other nouns he might have chosen, although most of them are feminine. Kinda makes one wonder why, eh?He may have selected chokmah because of its feminine case. He does seem to be comparing and contrasting her with the Hooker character of the preceding chapter. My point is that this wonderful personification with her obviously divine attributes may reflect the existence of an audience responsive to the liturgy of goddess cults; cults which were never eradicated from Jewish life; and even annoyed Isaiah in his time. I would expect to find evidence of these leanings in their prose and poetry; not alone in the multitude of feminine nouns which describe cleverness, intelligence, understanding, skill, craftiness, subtlity, prudence, substance, and yes: wisdom.There may be some reason of which I am unaware, why so many of these nouns are feminine. The first thing which comes to my mind is this peoples long history of goddess worship. A history which had tremendous influence on their culture and continued, apparently without interruption, into post-exhilic times.This subject interests me but I am not about to launch a campaign of research for it. I still feel that this passage is one of the few places in holy scripture femininity is envision in the realms of god. A sentiment sorely lacking in Christian culture.Thanks for the lesson in German grammar.db

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".

That was a concise and reasonable setting out of your position. I'll just leave it at that.

Not necessarily. And why does that concern you? 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. 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.'They also indicate that Paul quoted Genesis 1:1 at Hebrews 11:3. When you compare the two, even in the Greek (according to my version of the LXX) it does not appear to be a quote at all, but rather an allusion. Perhaps another version of the LXX contains the wording in question. There were three or more versions of it. Even when the NT quotes of OT passages are vaguely recognizable, they often seem to be butchered. This is due in part to the language difference (Hebrew to Greek) and in some cases represents quotes made from the LXX. If one expects word for word renditions with fully linked contexts then he is going to be very disappointed. Are you suggesting that anything NOT in the Jewish canon should be ignored? Except by a certain rebellious sect and their great apologist, a man from Tarsus. Of course not. Neither were the New Testament writings.You asked that we compare some of the passages I listed previously. Here's one: From 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).You will probably call this an "accident" as you did regarding Paul's quotes from pagan sources. But the number of happy "accidents" is mounting. Assertions are not evidence. Lack of evidence is not 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.Denials, do not in themselves persuade me; especially when someone is swinging a musty old book at my head and shouting words of fiery damnation. Oh, pardon me, that was you, wasn't it?! db

If I can add something to your case. I'll have to go hunt it down for you when I have more time, maybe mid-week. But the early fathers accused the Jews of failing to canonize the apocryphal books because they prophesied too clearly about Jesus. The apocrypha is quoted extensively by the fathers. Clement of Alexandria is a good example.If this person is a JW, as your post indicates, then he can't just write off Clement and other fathers, because the JW's publish a defense of their view of the Father and Son that quotes those fathers heavily.And have you addressed the quite direct quote in Jude from 1 Enoch 1:9 (or 1 Enoch 2:1, depending on how the chapters are divided)? I realize that's not part of the Apocrypha, but references to Enoch abound. In fact, Jesus' story about Lazarus and the rich man describes hades exactly as First Enoch describes it, all the way down to the "great gulf." Since Jude, supposedly Jesus' brother, actually quotes First Enoch, it would follow that Jesus was referencing it, too.

Thank you for your input. Just this morning I found this from an introduction to The Books of the Apocrypha by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton:Thus, I am pleasantly surprised to discover your response here this morning! Thank you for that. I was unaware. Even better! Completely outside "the box." Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the book of Enoch. But while looking for it in my reference material I notice that the book of Daniel is considered "Deuterocanonical" according to my copy of the Jerusalem Bible (readers edition - 1968). In their introduction to Daniel, the editors say this: Gee truthlover, I didn't realize what a fountain of information you could be. I must acquire a copy of Enoch and include this tidbit in my argument regarding "inspiration."Thanks again for your help.db

They consider the whole book of Daniel deuterocanonical or just chapters 13 and 14? The Protestants only accept the first twelve chapters. The last two are the stories of Bel and the Dragon and, uh, I forget the ladies name. A couple of pretty cool stories, and it seems like a Catholic source would be more likely to refer to those two chapters/stories as deuterocanonical than the whole book, even though a lot of scholars (most? almost all?) would consider Daniel to be written much later than accepted by fundamentalists.

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.

While it's true that many of the parallels cited between canonized gospel and deuterocanonical seem far-fetched, there are some that make the seeker look for more.----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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."