• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Incomplete Bible

Shermana

Heretic
Jesus referenced the Jewish OT canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51)


Jesus said the OT consisted of three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," (Luke 24:44)

1. Abel is not a book whether it's a reference to Genesis or not, he was referring to individuals, not books. And he was likely referring to the contemporary Priest Zechariah mentioned in some of the apocryphal NT writings, where it says he was slain right before Jesus was born. Even if you disagree, it's not necessarily referring to the Zechariah as in the book of, there are apparently two Zechariahs in the OT. And with that, Jesus was not necessarily implying all the books of the canon. He also mentioned the "Book of the Law", not the "Books of the Law", so was he referring to the Torah as just one book? Even the OT refers to it as the "Book of the Law", so at what point did the "Book of the Law" become the "Books of the Law"? And if 2 Esdras was written before Zechariah, that would kinda throw a wrench in your whole "Abel to Zechariah" thing. There's clearly room for the "Apocryphal" writings in even the "Genesis to the Book of Zechariah" timeframe.


2. Jude refers to Enoch 1:9 as "prophetic".

3. Do you consider the Book of Proverbs to be among the "prophets"? If not, where does it classify? Do you consider Esther to be among the "prophets"? If not, which of those 3 categories does it fit into?

4. There's no reason to believe that the "Apocryphal" works aren't considered parts of the "prophets" if you're going to include Proverbs and Esther in that list of 3 groups. And Jesus makes a clear reference to the Testament of Solomon when he says "One greater than Solomon is here" in reference to casting out demons. The idea that Solomon had command over demons was apparently a very well received tradition or it was a defacto canonical concept that would have only been familiar to his audience because of their familiarity with that work. So if you consider Proverbs to be among the "prophets", why can't Sirach be as well? If you consider Esther to be among the "prophets", why can't Judith be too? Or Tobit? If you're going to include the "stories", as "prophets", why not other writings as well? Why wouldn't Wisdom of Solomon also be included?

5. Not to mention that he's likely just referring to specific books that actually refer to him, and not as a general assessment of the entire canon.
 
Last edited:

ErikErik

Member
1. Abel is not a book whether it's a reference to Genesis or not, he was referring to individuals, not books..

Jesus was referring to the first and last people to have their blood shed as listed in the OT Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.

Anyway we can ride this merry-go-round for ever. I believe in the complete inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. It has no "lost books." That is my firm belief. Whatever you believe is your prerogative.

Blessings...
 

Shermana

Heretic
Erikerik:

]Jesus was referring to the first and last people to have their blood shed as listed in the OT Jewish canon.
By this logic you're saying that not a single prophet was slain after Zechariah in the OT. Doesn't fly. He was most likely referring to the contemporary Zechariah that was written about later in the NT Apocrypha as slain. Jerome notes that there are different accounts of which Zechariah this was exactly. Are you even aware of when the book of Zechariah was written? Probably before Ezra. Why doesn't it say "Abel to Ezra" instead? There's no reason to necessarily believe he was summarizing the canon. Also, how do you know that its the Zechariah as in the book of rather than the other Zechariah? Even Tektonics acknowledges there's major uncertainty on this issue:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.html
Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
Ummm, how can you prove that exactly? You kind of avoided my questions on what class Esther and Proverbs fits in, so apparently he wasn't mentioning those by your own logic. And you avoided that Jude referred to Enoch as prophetic. Try addressing my entire argument instead of snippets please.

in the complete inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. It has no "lost books." That is my firm belief.
Well at least you admit it's just your belief. I have firm belief that there are "70 books hidden for the Wise" and that this concept was not just fabricated by the author on his own, and I have a firm belief that by your logic that "Prophets, Psalms and the Law" equating to the entire Canon, that leaves out many books which aren't nicely summarized as such, and does not discount Esdras, and by your own timeline, Zecharias was suposed to go before Ezra. I also have a firm belief that this Zechariah was a contemporary of Jesus's time who was killed recently, and your belief would assume that not a single prophet was killed after 520 B.C.
Whatever you believe is your prerogative.
It's my perogative to expose faulty arguments and perceptions on this site in addition to stating my beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Top