# Which Bible ?



## Lowjack

Which Bible did the Messiah quote from ?
Was it King James or other translation ?


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Early church had Scriptures and we have the Bible. They were searching the Scriptures daily. I just wonder what exactly they were using for Scriptures?
“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed .” (Acts 17:10-12 KJV)


----------



## centerpin fan

It was either the original Hebrew or the Septuagint -- probably the former.

OTOH, maybe it was the NIV.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> It was either the original Hebrew or the Septuagint -- probably the former.
> 
> OTOH, maybe it was the NIV.



You mean the "Non-Inspired Version"?


----------



## rjcruiser

Read my sig line....then...check the sticky at the top of the forum...then delete this thread.

just a little friendly advice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yes he might have to ask it a different way.  The sticky say we can't discuss versions, is translations OK? Maybe ask what book was the scriptures Jesus quoted from?


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> Which Bible did the Messiah quote from ?
> Was it King James or other translation ?



Jesus did not have a Bible.


----------



## dawg2

rjcruiser said:


> Read my sig line....then...check the sticky at the top of the forum...then delete this thread.
> 
> just a little friendly advice.



I am going to allow some latitude on this thread, albeit very little.  If it revolves into a which version is better then it goes.  If it stays on topic with what did Jesus use, then it can stay...very fine line on this one.


----------



## Lowjack

Yes he did have a Bible which is called the Torah and this is what he studied and taught;
14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
 LUKE 4
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The First Church of Jerusalem Taught these very same scriptures it was the only Bible then.


----------



## Artfuldodger

dawg2 said:


> I am going to allow some latitude on this thread, albeit very little.  If it revolves into a which version is better then it goes.  If it stays on topic with what did Jesus use, then it can stay...very fine line on this one.



I'm would like to commend you for using logic & common sense on what this thread is about. Point well taken on not turning it into a versions thread.


----------



## hobbs27

Lowjack said:


> The First Church of Jerusalem Taught these very same scriptures it was the only Bible then.



I don't think they ever got it all together did they? I know many books are mentioned in the KJV that do not exist such as the book of wars...I studied the book of enoch that was once used by the early Christians, but I guess wasnt available at the time the KJV was assembled or wasnt able to be proved inspired.

I also know they could only carry so much in their frontlets or phylacteries.Jesus being The Word probably didn't have to study much, just my opinion.


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> Yes he did have a Bible which is called the Torah and this is what he studied and taught;
> 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
> LUKE 4
> 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
> 
> 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
> 
> 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
> 
> The First Church of Jerusalem Taught these very same scriptures it was the only Bible then.



Yes I agree he had the Torah.  But he was not reading the bible as we know it with both the Old and New Testament.


----------



## Ronnie T

And Jesus didn't have it tucked neatly under His forearm as He traveled from one location to another.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

dawg2 said:


> Yes I agree he had the Torah.  But he was not reading the bible as we know it with both the Old and New Testament.



He couldn't have. No New Testament existed at the time. From what I have read, the first books of the New Testament were written somewhere around 70ad, or about 40 years after Christ's resurrection.

Pappy


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> And Jesus didn't have it tucked neatly under His forearm as He traveled from one location to another.



No he didn't the story says , the book of Isaiah was brought out to him to read on that service, we all remember he read the passage referring to what the Messiah would do and He said today that has being fulfilled " meaning he was the Messiah.
It was the custom of the synagogues to pull the different books as needed as the pages of the Torah ,Tenach and Book of prophets were very large and heavy.Early Christians who were Jews met in Synagogues so these books were available to them also.


----------



## Lowjack

THere are Torahs on Display in Israel which are even older than the Dead sea scrolls;

But the two 7th century BCE silver scrolls containing excerpts from the Bible have pride of place in the exhibition. The valuable scrolls, which are several hundred years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, contain the oldest Torah texts in existence.



They were discovered in 1979 in the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem by Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay from Tel Aviv’s Bar-Ilan University. 



After three years of meticulous work to unroll the scrolls and conserve the frail silver containers, the material was made available for scientific research. The nearly invisible writing was analysed by Bruce Zuckerman, a professor of Semitic languages at the University of Southern California who had previously worked on the deciphering of Dead Sea Scrolls. 



Using a sophisticated digital photography technique, he revealed the scroll’s contents, which included a passage from the fourth book of the Old Testament and the so-called Aaronite priestly blessing. 



Barkay said the discovery of this early biblical inscription is an important argument supporting an earlier dating of the Bible. 



"I can at least say that these verses existed in the 7th century, the time of the Prophet Jeremiah,” Barkay said. This would make the texts hundreds of years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.


----------



## dawg2

dawg2 said:


> Yes I agree he had the Torah.  But he was not reading the bible as we know it with both the Old and New Testament.





NE GA Pappy said:


> He couldn't have. No New Testament existed at the time. From what I have read, the first books of the New Testament were written somewhere around 70ad, or about 40 years after Christ's resurrection.
> 
> Pappy



I think you mis-read my post.


----------



## JB0704

Looking at the pic above, it must have been tough toting the Bible to church, or synagogue, or wherever.  I know when I was a kid, not bringing a Bible to church was just as bad as cussin'.  

To the OP, it was the KJV.  Everybody knows that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

And now you can put the bible on your Ipad.
I believe it was more than one source as Scriptures is plural. Jesus did study in the synagogue when he was younger didn't he?


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  

The Messiah is the Word of God.  He read from the Torah, from the book of Isaiah, in accordance with the religious custom of the day.  But He did not need the scroll.  He is the Word!


----------



## Ronnie T

The scrolls were sacred.  They were protected, for obvious reasons.  No way of reproducing other than the Scribes.

Question:  Were these scrolls available to anyone?  Or were they only touched by the priests and teachers?
In other words, was there a librarians?


----------



## dawg2

Ronnie T said:


> The scrolls were sacred.  They were protected, for obvious reasons.  No way of reproducing other than the Scribes.
> 
> Question:  Were these scrolls available to anyone?  Or were they only touched by the priests and teachers?
> In other words, was there a librarians?



I am 99.9% confident the overwhelming majority of people did not have a set of scrolls laying around their home.  In fact, the vast majority of them could most likely not read them even if they did.  I am also fairly confident Christ was not wandering the land with a set of scrolls tied to his back either.


----------



## Ronnie T

Agree.  I believe most people were unable to read the text, even if available.
.


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> The scrolls were sacred.  They were protected, for obvious reasons.  No way of reproducing other than the Scribes.
> 
> Question:  Were these scrolls available to anyone?  Or were they only touched by the priests and teachers?
> In other words, was there a librarians?



It was the custom and still is the custom to let Children and Young men read from it at synagogues , still is.The Second floor of the temple was a library next to what is known as the Upper Room where the apostles were on the day of pentecost , that was the reading area
As far As Jesus studying in the synagogue must likely he did, But it is the custom also that to be called Rabbi he must have study under a Master Rabbi at the temple which was also the Yeshiva(University or college) for Rabbis , he would not have being called "Rabbi or Master"Unless he was and he was called so by other Rabbis.
He was called MAster Rabbi which means he was authorized to interpret the Torah , only Few Rabbis carried that Title , you could not called a regular Rabbi Master.


----------



## Lowjack

Ronnie T said:


> Agree.  I believe most people were unable to read the text, even if available.
> .



You would be wrong , must male Jews knew how to read in Hebrew , education has always being the priority in life for Jews even back then , there is plenty of evidence of schools in Synagogues even in the smallest villages , contrary what most westerners believe.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Jews have always put a very heavy emphasis on education and learning. By comparison, mass European populations were highly illiterate, and that may be why people here are assuming Jews must have been too. But it was an entirely different culture. Europe had *pockets* of literate and educated times separated by stretches of time when education was considered silly for anyone but a monk or a record-keeper of some other order. But it's not like the entire world went from enormously illiterate, to partially literate, to fully literate. History has never gone in this perfectly linear a way--not for Europe and not for the Middle East and not even for ancient Rome--so to assume that "olden days" and "poor people" meant illiteracy for Jews just because we generally group our own predominantly non-Jewish, highly European-based roots as illiterate doesn't necessarily make it true.

This is a different view from above?
The Torah was written by Persian priests about 2600 years ago under the aegis of Cyrus the Great to cement control over the illiterate population of Palestine. So citing made up stuff about things that supposedly happened centuries before it existed at all is ridiculous. The Torah didn't exist at the purported time. No tribe identifiable as Jews existed before 2600 years ago (about 500 BCE). The book of the Torah was the domain of priests who used it to control the population (the reason why The Word is so important). Ever wonder why there is nothing at all written about the Jews from 500 BCE to 0 BCE (who actually existed during this time)?

The Jewish concentration on learning the Torah and debating was something that arose after the diaspora (~70AD) when the Romans kicked them out of Palestine for constant rebellion.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/reli...wish-could-read-during-1ad.html#ixzz2LMecLw9V


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> You would be wrong , must male Jews knew how to read in Hebrew , education has always being the priority in life for Jews even back then , there is plenty of evidence of schools in Synagogues even in the smallest villages , contrary what most westerners believe.



From what I have read, literacy during the 2nd Temple Period was mostly Aramaic, not Hebrew.  The Torah would have been read by the Rabbi and translated by a meturgeman into the spoken language of the audience.  In the case of Jesus, most likely Aramaic.

When I made my post below and taking into consideration the time frame we are discussing as well as the audience, I wanted to clarify the blue part below.  What I was intending to say but was not clear, is the language in which the majority would have been literate would have been Aramiac, not necessarily Hebrew.  Judaism is well documented for an emphasis on literacy and education.



dawg2 said:


> I am 99.9% confident the overwhelming majority of people did not have a set of scrolls laying around their home.  In fact, the vast majority of them could most likely not read them even if they did.  I am also fairly confident Christ was not wandering the land with a set of scrolls tied to his back either.


----------



## Lowjack

dawg2 said:


> From what I have read, literacy during the 2nd Temple Period was mostly Aramaic, not Hebrew.  The Torah would have been read by the Rabbi and translated by a meturgeman into the spoken language of the audience.  In the case of Jesus, most likely Aramaic.
> 
> When I made my post below and taking into consideration the time frame we are discussing as well as the audience, I wanted to clarify the blue part below.  What I was intedning to say but was not clear, is the language in which the majority would have been literate would have been Aramiac, not necessarily Hebrew.  Judaism is well documented for an emphasis on literacy and education.



There is a misconception that Jews during the first millenium spoke Greek and Aramaic , this is not factual , Aramaic was a sublanguage spoken by some of the inhabitants of teh area , but Jews spoke mainly in Hebrew and wrote in Hebrew , people assumed since most of the NT was written By Paul in Greek , the Jews spoke in Greek , this is not supported by archeological finds , jews have always being exclusive in their Idiosyncracies and although many Arabs spoke in Arameic and Farsi Jews were exclusively Hebrew speakers , only those who came from other countries such as related in the book of acts spoke other languages , I want to clarify that Arameic makes up about 60% of the Hebrew language , just like Portugese today is 55% Spanish . All "Kosher" Torahs Used in Synagogues had to be in Hebrew.


----------



## centerpin fan

Lowjack said:


> ... people assumed since most of the NT was written By Paul in Greek , the Jews spoke in Greek , this is not supported by archeological finds ...



... but they did use the Septuagint, as did the early church.


----------



## Lowjack

centerpin fan said:


> ... but they did use the Septuagint, as did the early church.



Don't see how they had the septuagin when it was written around 200 AD , the church of Jerusalem Was gone by 70 AD. Maybe you are referring to the Church of Rome.?


----------



## centerpin fan

Lowjack said:


> Don't see how they had the septuagin when it was written around 200 AD ...



It was written between 200 and 300 BC, not AD.


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> Don't see how they had the septuagin when it was written around 200 AD , the church of Jerusalem Was gone by 70 AD. Maybe you are referring to the Church of Rome.?


Not accurate.  There was a Hellenized Jew named Philo Judaeus who was born in 25BC.  His works were based from the Greek translation of the Septaugint.  

READ MORE HERE:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12023a.htm 
HERE: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
HERE: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/philo-ascetics.asp

Knowing that he was in fact a real person, a very important person in the Jewish faith, and his writings are well known / documented, is proof the Septaugint has a much earlier history than 200 AD.  

Why would you say the Septaugint was written in 200AD?


----------



## Lowjack

dawg2 said:


> Not accurate.  There was a Hellenized Jew named Philo Judaeus who was born in 25BC.  His works were based from the Greek translation of the Septaugint.
> 
> READ MORE HERE:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12023a.htm
> HERE: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
> HERE: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/philo-ascetics.asp
> 
> Knowing that he was in fact a real person, a very important person in the Jewish faith, and his writings are well known / documented, is proof the Septaugint has a much earlier history than 200 AD.
> 
> Why would you say the Septaugint was written in 200AD?



my mistake in typing , I mean BC not AD , but still there was no Torah available in other Languages or mass Produced to Synagogues outside Israel , the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400s.
Before the advent of the printing press, the only way to duplicate a document or book was to copy it by hand. Probably the first copies of writing were made by engraving symbols on a slab of rock. A more temporary copy could be made by using a stylus on beeswax. The ancient invention of ink or dye enabled early scribes to make marks on animal hides, which could be scrubbed and used again.

 A great leap forward took place when the Egyptians began using papyrus. This plant, found along the Nile, was cut into strips, soaked in water, and then pressed into sheets. While the Old Testament was first copied on leather scrolls, the use of papyrus soon became the favorite of Bible copyists. The sheets of papyrus were sewed together and placed between two pieces of wood for covers. This type of book was called a codex. Actually the term Bible comes from the Greek word for "papyrus plant" (biblos). The oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament is a papyrus fragment containing part of John 18. Scholars estimate that it was written about 125 AD. 
Around 320 the codex book form replaced the roll or scroll, and parchment made from the skin of sheep or goats replaced papyrus. Also around this time the Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian and authorized the production of many copies of the Scriptures. Now the making of copies of the Bible began in earnest, but it was still a huge undertaking. Nor was much translation attempted. Probably the first translation of the New Testament was into Latin in 175.AD By the year 600 AD, the Gospels had been translated into only eight languages. 
With this copying and translation activity, a confusing variety of Scriptures began to circulate through the early church. Finally, the Pope commissioned the great scholar Jerome to make a definitive translation into Latin, which was completed in 405. For nearly a thousand years this translation, known as the Vulgate, reigned supreme. While many translations were made, a church council in Toulouse, France, in 1229 forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible. Nevertheless, "underground" translation and circulation of the Bible continued.


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> my mistake in typing , I mean BC not AD , but still there was no Torah available in other Languages or mass Produced to Synagogues outside Israel , the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400s.
> Before the advent of the printing press, the only way to duplicate a document or book was to copy it by hand. Probably the first copies of writing were made by engraving symbols on a slab of rock. A more temporary copy could be made by using a stylus on beeswax. The ancient invention of ink or dye enabled early scribes to make marks on animal hides, which could be scrubbed and used again.
> 
> A great leap forward took place when the Egyptians began using papyrus. This plant, found along the Nile, was cut into strips, soaked in water, and then pressed into sheets. While the Old Testament was first copied on leather scrolls, the use of papyrus soon became the favorite of Bible copyists. The sheets of papyrus were sewed together and placed between two pieces of wood for covers. This type of book was called a codex. Actually the term Bible comes from the Greek word for "papyrus plant" (biblos). The oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament is a papyrus fragment containing part of John 18. Scholars estimate that it was written about 125 AD.
> Around 320 the codex book form replaced the roll or scroll, and parchment made from the skin of sheep or goats replaced papyrus. Also around this time the Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian and authorized the production of many copies of the Scriptures. Now the making of copies of the Bible began in earnest, but it was still a huge undertaking. Nor was much translation attempted. Probably the first translation of the New Testament was into Latin in 175.AD By the year 600 AD, the Gospels had been translated into only eight languages.
> With this copying and translation activity, a confusing variety of Scriptures began to circulate through the early church. Finally, the Pope commissioned the great scholar Jerome to make a definitive translation into Latin, which was completed in 405. For nearly a thousand years this translation, known as the Vulgate, reigned supreme. While many translations were made, a church council in Toulouse, France, in 1229 forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible. Nevertheless, "underground" translation and circulation of the Bible continued.



I think the problem there (blue) was that people were translating incorrectly or modifying the bible and that was their only way to maintain its integrity and accuracy.  It was not to keep people from having access.  Not unlike Rabbis guarding the Torah.


----------



## Lowjack

In Spain that law remained until 1949 .


----------



## dawg2

Lowjack said:


> In Spain that law remained until 1949 .



I Mississippi they still allowed slavery until earlier this month. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mississippi-finally-ratifies-slavery-ban-article-1.1267133 

It is not uncommon to have old, antiquated, obsolete laws on the books.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Short answer. The Bible quotes Jesus, not vice versa. He is God incarnate and the author of the Bible.  He is the original Truth.  The Bible testifies to him.  But if you asked which book of the bible did Jesus quote from the most during his ministry here on earth , it would be Deuteronomy


----------



## Lowjack

He also quoted the prophets for they spoke of him all through their prophecies,


----------



## Michael F. Gray

Enjoyed reading the comments and the photos of the historic Torah. At the time Jusus Christ walked in flesh upon the earth the Roman Empire dominated the known world. The spoken languae at that time was Conai or Common Greek. The more educated learned Latin, and the Jews had Hebrew. I agree with SemperFiDawg on principal. It is unlikely most of us would have been able to understand what he said, has we been standing near him. For those of us whose primary language is English, the King James Edition is as good as any, and far better than most.


----------



## coyotebgone

*I don't have a clue*

It seems to me that religion is a tool to teach good morals. I have been raised christian. 

Just not really that interested in tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as I do that they are going to pergutory


----------



## piratebob64

I always thought the Messiah was JESUS! and not knowing any diffrent how could he have quoted from any bible as the first gathering of his quotes and teachings were compiled by his appostles a number of years after he was nailed to the cross died and assended to heaven to sit at the right hand of his father.


----------



## piratebob64

The Bible quotes Jesus, not vice versa. He is God incarnate and the author of the Bible. He is the original Truth. The Bible testifies to him. But if you asked which book of the bible did Jesus quote from the most during his ministry here on earth , it would be Deuteronomy 
Really,  He is the author?   He is God incarnate!  And the orignal truth!  And he had a bible to quote from  which version KJV?


----------



## Skyking

Lowjack said:


> Which Bible did the Messiah quote from ?
> Was it King James or other translation ?



The Torah, The Books of Moses  

This was the teachings and instructions.


----------



## hobbs27

Skyking said:


> The Torah, The Books of Moses
> 
> This was the teachings and instructions.



Yes!  Was! Not any more.


----------



## Big7

Jesus had no "Bible"

The "Bible" is a collection of text passed down through
out the early church via ORAL TRADITION and bound to this
earth by Canon Law.

Pretty much stayed the same until the man-made Reformation.

How it went down may be found HERE: (long and the whole 9 yards)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm


Misconceptions

There are two common misconceptions associated 
with canon law. First, many people wrongly assume
 that canon law largely is irrelevant today. 
What these individuals fail to understand that 
it is canon law is controlling the manner in which 
the largest group of Christians in the world worship
 and conduct their spiritual affairs. Second, other people 
believe that the heads of churches that adhere to 
canon law--specifically the 
Roman Catholic Pontiff--dictate all elements of canon 
law and are infallible when they make decisions in this regard. 
In fact, the last Pope to make a statement deemed to be 
infallible and an absolute matter of faith was Pius XII in 1950.

More on that HERE: (much shorter but less info.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5085005_canon-law.html


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Second, other people
> believe that the heads of churches that adhere to
> canon law--specifically the
> Roman Catholic Pontiff--dictate all elements of canon
> law and are infallible when they make decisions in this regard.
> In fact, the last Pope to make a statement deemed to be
> infallible and an absolute matter of faith was Pius XII in 1950.
> 
> More on that HERE: (much shorter but less info.
> http://www.ehow.com/about_5085005_canon-law.html



How can a fallible man make an infallible statement?

I know...I know...we won't agree


----------



## Big7

rjcruiser said:


> How can a fallible man make an infallible statement?
> 
> I know...I know...we won't agree




Here ya' go.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Ex Cathedra is the key word.
Means only when spoken from the Throne Of St. Peter
(The first Pope) Not every word he says as some believe.
And yes he sins like everyone else.

Read more about that HERE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
Inside this page the stuff in blue can be clicked
for further explanation.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> Here ya' go.
> http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
> 
> Ex Cathedra is the key word.
> Means only when spoken from the Throne Of St. Peter
> (The first Pope) Not every word he says as some believe.
> And yes he sins like everyone else.
> 
> Read more about that HERE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
> Inside this page the stuff in blue can be clicked
> for further explanation.



Right...I know it isn't every word...and I know you believe there were only two perfect people ever born on this earth (Jesus and Mary)...while I only believe there was one.

Problem I see is this...how can one who is tainted with sin, somehow come up with something that is not tainted with sin?

The only way that you or I or the Pope can say something that is perfect is if we read God's Word.

But...I know...I'm not going to change your mind...and you're not going to change mine  Just want to make sure and point out some differences.


----------



## Big7

10-4 

Go HERE: http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/qt/marymisconcepts.htm
If you don't want to read it all start HERE: Why do Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?About half way down the page. Many Protestants believe the "Immaculate Conception" was when Mary conceived Jesus, but it ain't.

Then go HERE: http://christianity.about.com/gi/o....zu=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
and you will need to read all of this one to understand the doctrine.

Then I'm going to stop this in this thread.
We can start another one if you like, I'm loaded for bear.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

The Septuagint, know as the LXX, is what most think based on What Luke states that Jesus read. But we can't be sure that just because Luke words it the way of the Septuagint that this is how it was read from Jesus. Remember that Luke is not an eyewitness. He could have know what he read, or the place he read from and then word it with what he [Luke] was familiar with. Also, it is not completly, Septuagint. It is mostly Septuagint in Luke's account of Jesus reading. The Septuagint is not as seems. It was a collection of fought over translations of different OT books by different people at different times. Put together somewhat like our Canon of NT scriptures. So it is not a formal translation of the OT. The Masor..... I can't remember the word.... Masoretic text, that could be wrong,. may have been what Jesus read from. We will never know.


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:
			
		

> We can start another one if you like, I'm loaded for bear.



Nope...not gonna start another thread.  We will have to agree to diagree as I know where you stand and you know where I stand and we aren't changing our minds.  Lol.

Oh...and btw..I know that the immaculate conception is about Mary and not Christ.

Cheers


----------



## NE GA Pappy

dawg2 said:


> I think you mis-read my post.



No, I understood your post and was agreeing with it, though it may not have come across that way.  

What I was trying to say was that I agree, Jesus couldn't have read from the Bible as we know it today, because it didn't exist at that time.  I would suspect being Jewish and educated as a Jew, he read Jewish scrolls written in Hebrew, but I could be wrong.

I heard a guy talking about the KJV once make the statement....  If it was good enough for Mama, and it was good enough for Moses, it is good enough for me.....

We discussed it later on... he really thought Moses had the KJV translation to read.....


----------



## Lowjack

NE GA Pappy said:


> No, I understood your post and was agreeing with it, though it may not have come across that way.
> 
> What I was trying to say was that I agree, Jesus couldn't have read from the Bible as we know it today, because it didn't exist at that time.  I would suspect being Jewish and educated as a Jew, he read Jewish scrolls written in Hebrew, but I could be wrong.
> 
> I heard a guy talking about the KJV once make the statement....  If it was good enough for Mama, and it was good enough for Moses, it is good enough for me.....
> 
> We discussed it later on... he really thought Moses had the KJV translation to read.....



Yeshua (Jesus) read from the Torah , Tenak and Book of prophets , So did the apostles and that was the scripture that was used in the first Church of Jerusalem.


----------



## Bama4me

Lowjack said:


> Which Bible did the Messiah quote from ?
> Was it King James or other translation ?



Those who have researched this topic have concluded the Lord quoted from both the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (LXX - Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures).  I am not familiar with any scholars who claim Jesus quoted from any Aramaic OT passages (though they may be out there).  If I'm not mistaken, I believe He actually quoted from approximately 27-28 of the OT books (according to our count - some in past history combined books like 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings etc. in "numbering" the books).


----------



## Lowjack

Bama4me said:


> Those who have researched this topic have concluded the Lord quoted from both the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (LXX - Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures).  I am not familiar with any scholars who claim Jesus quoted from any Aramaic OT passages (though they may be out there).  If I'm not mistaken, I believe He actually quoted from approximately 27-28 of the OT books (according to our count - some in past history combined books like 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings etc. in "numbering" the books).



Language[edit source]

Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic.[22] Other books, such as the Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly.[9] Jewish Koine Greek exists primarily as a category of literature, or cultural category, but apart from some distinctive religious vocabulary is not distinct from other varieties of Koine Greek to be counted a separate dialect of Greek.

The Septuagint is also useful for elucidating pre-Masoretic Hebrew: many proper nouns are spelled out with Greek vowels in the LXX, while contemporary Hebrew texts lacked vowel pointing.[23] One must, however, evaluate such evidence with caution since it is extremely unlikely that all ancient Hebrew sounds had precise Greek equivalents.[24]


----------



## hylander

Jesus did not quote from a 'Bible', I think everyone can agree on that.   Kind of playing symantecs here because when He started His ministry, you could actually say He was quoting Himself, since He and the Father are one.  

Jesus quoted Jewish text from the Torah when he talked with His disciples and the priests.  The Bible came centuries after the crucifiction/resurrection when it was decided what books would be put together to make it up.  I am simplifying the process, but the basic premise is there.


----------



## Bama4me

hylander said:


> Jesus did not quote from a 'Bible', I think everyone can agree on that.   Kind of playing symantecs here because when He started His ministry, you could actually say He was quoting Himself, since He and the Father are one.
> 
> Jesus quoted Jewish text from the Torah when he talked with His disciples and the priests.  The Bible came centuries after the crucifiction/resurrection when it was decided what books would be put together to make it up.  I am simplifying the process, but the basic premise is there.



This is flat incorrect.  The Old Testament canon was very much being utilized by the first century.  The portion you are referring to is the NT portion.  Also, Jesus DID quote from the Septuagint - that's factual.

In being tempted by Satan, Jesus three times began His answer by "it is written".  He didn't say "I said".  In fact, He didn't say those things... the Holy Spirit inspired men to write those things (2 Peter 1:21).  The fact the Godhead is united (one), doesn't mean one says things clearly attributed to another.  In Matthew 3:17, the Father said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."  Jesus didn't say that... nor the Holy Spirit.  The FATHER said it.


----------



## hylander

Bama4me said:


> This is flat incorrect.  The Old Testament canon was very much being utilized by the first century.  The portion you are referring to is the NT portion.  Also, Jesus DID quote from the Septuagint - that's factual.
> 
> In being tempted by Satan, Jesus three times began His answer by "it is written".  He didn't say "I said".  In fact, He didn't say those things... the Holy Spirit inspired men to write those things (2 Peter 1:21).  The fact the Godhead is united (one), doesn't mean one says things clearly attributed to another.  In Matthew 3:17, the Father said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."  Jesus didn't say that... nor the Holy Spirit.  The FATHER said it.





Actually, no.  The 'Bible' per say was put together after.    You are correct on the old Testament manuals themselves were in fact read centuries after as were the new Testament that Paul, Peter, and the rest of the disciples, (Paul) was not there, but was considered one, had penned or had someone pen their words for the NT.  But officially, a 'Bible' was not clearly defined till later and Old Testatment Manuals were not even called that then.  

You are correct that the Father did say  "This is my Beloved Son".  There is a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Three Seperate, One God.   Jesus also did say The Father is in Me and I am in the Father.  So, you could say that when the 'Father' was not referring directly to His Son', the words of God were being spoken by all three - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We can agree to disagree if you want on this.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think Jesus quoted "scriptures" he learned as a man. He put aside his diety and came to earth as a man.


----------



## hylander

Artfuldodger said:


> I think Jesus quoted "scriptures" he learned as a man. He put aside his diety and came to earth as a man.



Yes and no.  If He put aside his diety, then the demons would never have shown fear of Him when He cast them out.    When He was younger and before His ministry probably He was.

Satan looked at Him as a mere man and tried to tempt Him in the desert but failed.  He looked at the fragile body, but not at the spirit.  

When Jesus began His Ministry, He knew where it led, to the cross.   His comment in John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am".  speaks of his diety.  His speaking to Peter of his denial during Jesus' arrest, His knowing of the betrayal and the thoughts of the Pharisees.  If He gave up His diety, He would not be able to know these things.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hylander said:


> Yes and no.  If He put aside his diety, then the demons would never have shown fear of Him when He cast them out.    When He was younger and before His ministry probably He was.
> 
> Satan looked at Him as a mere man and tried to tempt Him in the desert but failed.  He looked at the fragile body, but not at the spirit.
> 
> When Jesus began His Ministry, He knew where it led, to the cross.   His comment in John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am".  speaks of his diety.  His speaking to Peter of his denial during Jesus' arrest, His knowing of the betrayal and the thoughts of the Pharisees.  If He gave up His diety, He would not be able to know these things.



I would think Jesus knew who he was at a young age. I'm sure God talked directly to him but he did everything by the power of his Father.


As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Matt 10:8

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. Matt 12:25-29 


Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was. Mk 1:34

He appointed twelve—designating them apostles—that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. Mark 3:14-15

The demons did know who Jesus was. The disciples could also drive out demons but sometimes lacked enough faith to do so.


----------



## Bama4me

hylander said:


> Actually, no.  The 'Bible' per say was put together after.    You are correct on the old Testament manuals themselves were in fact read centuries after as were the new Testament that Paul, Peter, and the rest of the disciples, (Paul) was not there, but was considered one, had penned or had someone pen their words for the NT.  But officially, a 'Bible' was not clearly defined till later and Old Testatment Manuals were not even called that then.



Let's let Jesus' words clarify shall we?  In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said "Do not think that I am come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."  Jesus obviously spoke of a collection of books which were known to His audience - that strongly implies there was a "fixed canon" defined as "the Law and the Prophets".  He made the same type of statement over in Matthew 22:40.  Notice especially there that the lawyer who posed the original question to Jesus didn't argue as to the books "included/excluded" in that group... that's due to the fact that it was already established.

In John 5:39, Jesus told people, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life."  No one here disputed what "the Scriptures" consisted of.  In all, Jesus used the word "Scriptures" six times in people's hearing... and not once did people ask "what's classified as 'the Scriptures'?"  That obviously means that the Jews utilized a "fixed collection" of books called "Scripture".

I'm not concerned with when people actually began using the term "bible" or "old testament"... Jesus quoted from these books of the OT and called them "Scripture".  The Septugint, by its very existence, proves that there was a "fixed canon" by the time of Christ.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> I think Jesus quoted "scriptures" he learned as a man. He put aside his diety and came to earth as a man.



According to Philippians 2:4ff and John 1:1ff, it seems the Lord didn't "put aside" His Deity when He came to earth.  
He was truly Divine... and human at the same time.

However, it DOES seem that He did not exercise some of His power as "God" that was available to Him in heaven.  Chew on this one... why did Jesus need to be led by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 4:1) if "God" is totally capable of leading Himself?  It would seem obvious that Jesus didn't exercise His "Godly ability" to lead Himself during this time of His life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Phillippians
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.…

He emptied Himself. He didn't regard equality with God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Luke 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Gill's commentary: 
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost,.... The Spirit of God having descended on him at his baptism, and afresh anointed, and filled his human nature with his gifts, whereby, as man, he was abundantly furnished for the great work of the public ministry, he was just about to enter upon; yet must first go through a series of temptations, and which, through the fulness of the Holy Spirit in him, he was sufficiently fortified against.

Returned from Jordan; where he came, and had been with John, and was baptized by him; which, when over, he went back from the same side of Jordan, to which he came:

and was led by the Spirit; the same Spirit, or Holy Ghost he was full of;


----------



## Artfuldodger

Colossians 1:19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.

This verse sounds like the Holy Spirit was dwelling in Jesus who came to earth as a man.

I started a new thread on Jesus emptying himself.


----------

