ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Esdras Tobit Judith Wisdom

If Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus etc etc are not sriptural because Jesus did not quote from them, why are Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Zephaniah, and others scriptural even though Jesus did not quote from them?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---alan8566_of_uk on 4/23/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



jerry,

thank you for the correction I didn't notice. And yes there are my kids have some, ha ha ha

be blessed
---willa5568 on 6/4/11


willa: "something we should consider about a book being conical"

Are there really cone-shaped books?
---jerry6593 on 6/4/11


something we should consider about a book being conical or not is there are several books in the new and old testament that have been debated as to wether they are or aren't, by both Jews and Christians. Some I know of are song of Solomon, Jude, 2Peter. There are several more but I can't remember which they are.
---willa5568 on 5/11/11


"f the five conditions demanded before any book can be accepted as canon, NOT ONE condition is achieved to satisfaction," (andy3996)

Please explain further. And lets weight those conditions with the books you accept.

"is heresy and a deviation from the early churchfathers' statutes. "

There are over 300 quotations made by the Early Church Fathers to these books as Scriptures. Your history is flawed.

All Ancient Apostolic Christians churches accept them as Scriptures, and even the African Jews do too. Protestants removed them from Christian antiquity 1,500 years AFTER the fact.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 5/6/11


\\ESDRAS, TOBIT, WISDOM OF SOLOMON ECCLESIASTICUS are specifically written for a jewish audience, and however jews accept them, they refuse it as FROM GOD.\\

They were translated as part of the Scriptures in that version called the Septuagint by scholars from the Temple.

They were not REMOVED from Jewish scripture until 300 years afterwards.

Nevertheless, "small minority" modifies "Protestantism," not Jews, and so I cast my sentence.

And there's no such word as "erronic."

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/6/11




Cluny "only jews and a small minority of protestantism".
this is an interesting and erronic statement.
about jews
ESDRAS, TOBIT, WISDOM OF SOLOMON ECCLESIASTICUS are specifically written for a jewish audience, and however jews accept them, they refuse it as FROM GOD. the minority of protestants that refuse these books is each and every singly non-ancient christian. some read them but ALL reject them as canon.
---andy3996 on 5/6/11


andy3996:

Could you please state book, chapter, and verse which lays out these "five conditions" for accepting a book as biblical canon?

If not, such conditions are themselves also merely human traditions. They may be good traditions, but they are traditions nonetheless.
---StrongAxe on 5/6/11


Cluny, regretfully these books have been accepted in spite of the standards posed for acceptin a book as canon. of the five conditions demanded before any book can be accepted as canon, NOT ONE condition is achieved to satisfaction, therefore calling these books canon, is heresy and a deviation from the early churchfathers' statutes. even if Jrome put it (forcebly) inside the canon.
---andy3996 on 5/6/11


"And so all Israel shall be saved:"( Romans 11:26) So what did Paul really mean on both accounts?
---Ruben on 5/4/11

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the (nations)(ethnos) be come in.
Judah does not see to this day as we are all aware.
The Lost Sheep of the Nth House of Israel does....and rejoices.
The other party coming in here is the Nth House nations
See Heb 8:8.
People/preachers/teachers/doctrinals have thrown away the largest part of Israel. GOD hasn't.
Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. ....
---Trav on 5/6/11


These books are accepted as canonical by Roman Catholics, Eastern Churches united with Rome, Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, the Assyrian Church of the East, and God.

It's only Jews and a small minority of Protestants just since the 1600's that have rejected them.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/5/11




i read these books, and i understand clearly why they are non-canon. (canon is a measuring rod id est the measure for our faith) however these apocrypha are nice books with some good moral advice they have no ressemblancewith the canon.is it forbidden to read them? no but outside the bible canon. and better even as seperate booklets in the fiction departement.
---andy3996 on 5/5/11


Alan, keep reading and meditating upon the Holy Bible only, and don't waste time on those "other" nonscriptural books.
---Eloy on 5/4/11


willa5568, none are so blind as they whom will not see. Again, I correct you, for the gospel is for all whom accept the gospel, and God's word is especially for his children: "For he calls his own sheep by name, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice."
---Eloy on 5/4/11


\\Not only are there few Christians who post on this site, but there are many sinners who also post on this website.\\

WRONG.

EVERYONE who posts to this stie is a sinner.

But Eloy is a sinuous unregenerate disser who has no light in him and is unsaved clay.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/3/11


willa5568,

Matthew 9:35-38 "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few, Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest."

What love and hope shown in those verses! Amazing really, considering that He knew that the very multitudes would prefer a criminal over him!
---Nana on 5/2/11


Eloy,

The Gospel is not for the righteous but for sinners. repentance and condemnation are two very different things. No where in scripture will you find Jesus (who spoke harshly to those who were self righteous not sinners)or any of the Apostles speak of unbelievers this way. I can tell you it was not fear of God or condemnation that opened my eyes, but the testimony of someone whose life was changed by faith in the gospel.

It breaks my heart to see you forget what we all were at one time. THOSE WHO ARE FORGIVEN MUCH LOVE MUCH.
---willa5568 on 5/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


willa5568, Not only are there few Christians who post on this site, but there are many sinners who also post on this website. And we saints are not concerned about what sinners think of the gospel of truth, nor do we dilute the truth in order to please sinners. We preach straight repentance for salvation, and those whom reject are rejected by Christ, and those whom accept are accepted by Christ.
---Eloy on 5/2/11


49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me, he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
---Trav on 5/2/11


Eloy:

I seek truth. When I see someone presenting something as truth (and furthermore INSISTING that it is truth), when I know for a fact that it is not, and can easily be shown to not be the truth, I must in good conscience speak up.

Whenever I or others confront you with this, you could easily provide evidence that you speak the truth (since truth is easy to corroborate). Yet instead of doing so, you resort to personal attacks on those who challenge you.

I keep mentioning the Bible's standard for establishing truth (2 or 3 witnesses), yet you NEVER ONCE have acknowledged this, nor attemtped to follow it. Why is that?
---StrongAxe on 5/2/11


Everyone,

I think the love of God is not being displayed by some. And I wonder what someone who is not a disciple of Jesus would think of Christians if they read some of these comments. I hope we all will meditate on what we say because we may be scaring away those who have questions about being a Christian.
---willa5568 on 5/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


strongax, your disagreement is your own choice, I do not speak with dissers, but after you get saved then there can be communication and fellowship one with another.
---Eloy on 5/1/11


Eloy:

When I disagree with you, I cite facts easily verifiable by relevant authorities (scriptures for on religious matters, dictionaries for words, etc.). When you disagree with me or anyone else, however, rather than citing authorities, you make personal attacks ("weak ax", calling people full of darkness, unsaved, etc.)

I repeatedly mention the Bible's standard of truth - i.e. 2-3. Yet when challenged, you ignore all requests to provide corroboration (i.e. a second witness). Do you believe the Bible's standard of truth does not apply to you?

(Very simple examples: look up "lordess", "whom", and "sinuous" in ANY dictionary).
---StrongAxe on 5/1/11


strongax, again, weak ax.
---Eloy on 4/30/11


\\Perhaps God afords the dead this capability in order for them to repent and receive a living mind.
---Eloy on 4/28/11\\

Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself, Eloy.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/30/11


Send a Free Funny Valentine Ecard


Eloy:

Everyone who knows English grammar knows these things are wrong. These are a cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) attesting the truth. The Bible requires 2-3 witnesses to establish truth. You have only one - yourself. You never provide independent corroboration of these claims. By biblical standards, therefore, you are wrong. You have two choices:
1) To admit you are wrong (thus not infallible), or
2) To continue to claim you are correct, making the Bible a liar.
Number 1 is difficult. Humility is always difficult.
Number 2 is pride and heresy.

Proverbs 16:18 (also 1 Timothy 3:60):
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
---StrongAxe on 4/30/11


strongaxe, I already corrected you on misjudging my own words, hitherto your axe continues to be weak.
---Eloy on 4/30/11


Eloy:

There are many times when you have demonstrated incorrect English usage (for example, using "whom" as a subject, using "sinuous" as an opposite to "righteous", "lordess" as feminine for "lord", etc.)

If your use of your own first language is imperfect in this way, it is difficult to believe that your translations of other languages is more accurate, especially with some manifestly wrong examples (for example, your derivation of "Nebuchadnezzer" = 666, using "ch" = kappa+eta, where Greek would use chi and Hebrew would use chet - only English uses two letters.)
---StrongAxe on 4/29/11


Cluny posts foolishness: "I've seen your attempts, Eloy, and they are as accurate as your use of English." Then says, "I thought..." It is interesting that a dark mind has any capability to think thoughts. Perhaps God afords the dead this capability in order for them to repent and receive a living mind.
---Eloy on 4/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Alan, stay with "The Holy Bible", and forget all "other" writings.
---Eloy on 4/29/11


\\Cluny, Again, I condemn your dissing. Because you diss the truth and blaspheme Christians does not change the proven fact that I do actively translate, rather than your false alleging that I "attempt" rather than "do" translate.\\

I thought you said a long time ago that you weren't going to respond to my posts, Eloy.

Despite your attempts at elevated diction (such as your misuse of "whom"), and erudtion (such as mistranslating "kosmos" to mean "harmony") your cultural level comes through even in English.

Christ is risen.
---Cluny on 4/28/11


Ruben, You are greatly deceived. Jesus Almighty did not pray to these two physical bodies from heaven .
---Eloy on 4/27/11

No, but by communication to the dead saints shows that just speaking to them is not sinful, unless Jesus is a sinner:)Scripture tells us "'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living,(MK 12:24-27)Hebrews 12:1 says " we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" after telling us about the OT saints in Chapter 11.
---Ruben on 4/28/11


Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
---Trav on 4/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Cluny, Again, I condemn your dissing. Because you diss the truth and blaspheme Christians does not change the proven fact that I do actively translate, rather than your false alleging that I "attempt" rather than "do" translate.
---Eloy on 4/28/11


"Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to just the first 11 chapters of Genesis 107 times!"
---Warwick on 4/26/11

Some more on "number of times" lines. Interesting to note that Jacob is mentioned 29 times in NCovenant Testament, and collective Israel 75 times also in NT.
Israel together with Jacob is seen by name 3,929 times in the Bible. Appx 900+ more times by other names, like beloved,wife,sheep,adulteress,etc.
Isaiah 66:22
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Deut 32:9
For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
---Trav on 4/28/11


Ruben,

I don't think the scripture you have used justifies what you are presenting. And I agree with Eloy. Please take what he has said to heart and seek God that he can show you if it is or is not true.

It's not wrong to change what you have always been taught if it is wrong, I have had to in several things.
---willa5568 on 4/28/11


\\willa5568, yes, I have read the apocrypha. I translate the holy scriptures, and the apocrypha are not holy scripture.
---Eloy on 4/27/11\\

I've seen your attempts, Eloy, and they are as accurate as your use of English.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Ruben, You are greatly deceived. Jesus Almighty did not pray to these two physical bodies from heaven which he brought down from heaven to the mountain and shown them to his apostles. He foretold these apostles that they would see the kingdom of God before they died- Luke 9:27, and that is why Jesus Almighty showed this to them. And paying alms can never atone for ones sins nor purchase God's salvation. The scripture is very clear, only Jesus and Jesus Christ alone can hear and answer your prayers: "For One God and One Mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God can be bought with money." I Tm.2:5+ Act 8:20.
---Eloy on 4/27/11


Givng alms to the poor is a very good thing, but if you are giving money because you think that you are buying forgiveness or salvation from God, then you are greatly deluded. And if someone told you this, that you can purchase God's forgiveness, then they are lying to you. And if God's grace were somehow this cheap, and it is not, then everybody every where would be lining up to buy some of God. But the truth is, no one can buy God Almighty nor his goodness. For one thing, God doesn't need your pieces of metal you call money, for he created everything and he owns absolutely every single thing in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
---Eloy on 4/27/11


And "Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to just the first 11 chapters of Genesis 107 times!"
---Warwick on 4/26/11

Ignatius, twice the above was posted to you like it was and astounding debate decider of some sort. The number recognized by most and i found to be with was 68 times in the whole of Book of Genesis. And only 33 times in the first 11 chapters. Perhaps he is including the word "the" or something?
From Gen6:8 to Revelations it foundations the lineage of Israel. So it's not clear what R-evolutionary point he thinks he pounding home. Unless you are getting something out of this "107 times"! ??
---Trav on 4/27/11


Eloy* of praying for the dead, of dead saints interceding for the living,

"there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him. "(Mt 19:1-4) Here our Lord speaking to dead saints and in fact he did it in front of Peter and James, an example for us to do.

Eloy*and of atoning for ones sins by paying alms,

Acts 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.
---Ruben on 4/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


willa5568, yes, I have read the apocrypha. I translate the holy scriptures, and the apocrypha are not holy scripture.
---Eloy on 4/27/11


Eloy,

Have you read the Apocrypha?
---willa5568 on 4/27/11


The manmade apocrypha has already been publicly proven to be falsehood, for they clearly contradict the dictations or inspirations that have already been given by God. For the apocrypha contain the lies and antiChrist heresies of reincarnation, of praying for the dead, of dead saints interceding for the living, and of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, et cetera and et cetera, all these unholy writings are evident lies, and none from God.
---Eloy on 4/27/11


I have a question.

How many of you who do not think they should be in the scriptures have read them?

I do not think it's appropriate to criticize something based on someone else's opinion.

Me personally, I am on neither side as of yet because I have not read most of them, though I have started.
---willa5568 on 4/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Donna66:

The question is, though, what is an "original disciple"? Does Paul count?

If not (i.e. an "original disciple" is someone who travelled with Jesus), Paul doesn't count, since he never met Jesus personally, which would disqualify more than half of the New Testament.

If so (i.e. having a vision of Jesus counts), then Paul counts, but so do many others who have subsequently had private revelations of Jesus.

I think you will find it difficult to find a criterion that will include Paul but nobody else.
---StrongAxe on 4/27/11


StrongAxe-- As I said, It was not necessary that it be written by one of the original apostles, but must be "based on the testimony of an original disciple". Big difference there.

Of course, disagreements between churchmen responsibe for choosing the canon, are legendary.
---Donna66 on 4/26/11


Eloy:

The fact that Jesus didn't quote something doesn't necessarily mean it isn't scripture. Jesus never quoted Esther, yet Esther is universally considered scripture by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants alike.
---StrongAxe on 4/26/11


Eloy,

I agree with cluny, I don't believe you can without a doubt no questions asked say they are not of God. Though most early Christians did consider them secondary to what we have as our Bible, that does not mean for certainty they are not what he claims them to be.

Do some research on them and I think you may not feel that way so strongly, though it may be true.
---willa5568 on 4/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


\\they are not scripture because sinners is their source, rather than God:\\

They are Scripture, and God is their source.

They were accepted by Christians all over the world for nearly 1600 years as scripture.

It was only SOME Christians in the WEST who started rejecting them only in the last few centuries.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/26/11


Alan, the apocrypha are not scripture because Jesus did not quote from them, instead they are not scripture because sinners is their source, rather than God: just as dictionaries and encyclodepias are also not holy scripture and are thereby rightly left out of the two testaments.
---Eloy on 4/26/11


John,

you are very correct in what you are saying. That is a very good reason not many of us should be teachers. There are quite a few more additions and mistranslation also. There are debates though over which manuscripts are to be used, and many prefer the manuscript used in the King James, rejecting the over a thousand more manuscripts that have been found that are written in the way you have presented and are much older. For the most part though more than 95% of all of the manuscripts agree.
---willa5568 on 4/25/11


Then add to that, the many Scribal notes that migrated from the margins and ended up inside the text of scripture.

Very few Christians are even aware of them and many are very damaging to the teachings of Christ. Since People assume it was the Word of Christ.

FOR EXAMPLE...

SCRIBAL ADDITION TO THE LORD'S PRAYER...
"For Thine is the Kingdom and the Glory forever and ever"
NOT IN THE PRAYER!

OR...

"These are only cast out "BY FASTING" and praying

"By Fasting" was not in text but added by a scribe (200-300AD)

So the teachings get corrupted.
---John on 4/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


aka:

For starters:
Act 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks (from Bacchae)
Acts 17:28: as your own poets have said, we are his offspring (from Aratus (Phenomenae 1-5))
1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners (from Menander of Athens)
1 Timothy 5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews let them learn first to show piety at home (from Publius Terentius: Andria Act IV)
Titus 1:12-13: Cretans are liars (from Epimenides)

(OK, so two of these were quoted by Luke, not Paul, but the point remains valid).
---StrongAxe on 4/25/11


concerning the canon of the old testament and the Apocrypha, there was not a unanimous decision on which were authoritative and which were not until the Catholic church because of the Reformation. Most if not all
Christian leaders of that time with the exception of the
Catholics also considered them secondary to those books most accept as scripture today.

I have to say there has been so much debate over wither or not they should or should not be included, I do not think either side can be certain based on history.
---willa5568 on 4/25/11


"The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books" (Donna66)

Who is "our"? The Majority of Christians do not have recognize only 39 books in the Old Testament. The council you reference was NOT binding to Christians or Jews (the African Jews for instance did not accept the council decision, and still do not). The Council also rejected the NT. What that council said matters not to Christians. It was open by Christ-hated & Christian hated Jews.

"Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible....to be complete,"

But the Ancient Church considered more books as canonical in the OT then most Protestants do today.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 4/24/11


Paul even quoted from books of pagan philoshopy. ---StrongAxe on 4/24/11

Please be more specific.
---aka on 4/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Donna66:

While that is a good start, it's not necessarily complete. For example, Luke (who wrote Luke and Acts) was not one of the original apostles, and was merely documenting events experienced and witnessed by others - yet nobody questions the canonicity of Luke and Acts. Also, Paul, even though he was an apostle, wasn't one of the "original" apostles.
---StrongAxe on 4/24/11


In reading on this I found my understanding was wrong about the Apocrypha. The Jews did not deny them as biblical until 200A.D. Because of, who do you think, Christians who debated them.They also considered scripture only those books written before 400 BC. They also denied the Septuagint because they felt it was corrupted by the Christians. Most of the Old Testament Manuscripts for Christians contained all or most of them. In the 4th century there were debates as to which books should be included though.

So if you accept them that's OK or if you don't that's OK. The reason is regardless, with what both sides do agree on as Gods word, we all have what we need to follow Christ and learn of Him.
---willa5568 on 4/23/11


Those books are canonical, just not to Protestants.
---John.usa on 4/23/11


Scripture does not become canon because Jesus quoted from it. As you pointed out, our present Bible would be a lot shorter if that was the case.

The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books, which were essentially the same as the Jewish scriptures. Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible, including the NT, to be complete,

A book in the Bible must have the authority of a spiritual leader of Israel (O.T. prophet, king, judge, scribe) or an apostle of the church (N.T. It must be based on the testimony of an original apostle.)
---Donna66 on 4/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Alan, not sure that is the criteria for choosing books as canon.

Jude quotes... The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch.
---John on 4/23/11


Good point Alan. One of the objection many Protestants give for rejected these books (even though the Ancient Christians and Afrian Jews considered them Scriptures) is that neither Jesus or His Apostles quoted these books. But this reasoning is faulty because, like you said, they also did not quote from several Old Testament books currently in all Christian Bible.

A lack of quotation to a any specific book does not mean the author (authors) consider it uninspired.

One can not simply reconstruct a canonical list of books simply by reading the New Testament.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 4/23/11


Bill_willa6989:

Even being quoted was no guarantee, because there were several books quoted that we have never seen elsewhere (like the book of Jasher), and Paul even quoted from books of pagan philoshopy.
---StrongAxe on 4/24/11


Possibly because the ones evaluating found there is enough other evidence to support their being scripture.

It could be that being quoted is one consideration, but not the only one.

So, when they rejected one because it wasn't quoted, it could be that was not the only reason, but it could have tipped the scale.
---Bill_willa6989 on 4/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.