Faced with this fact of history, some denominations seek to justify their existence with the claim that the original Church founded by Jesus Christ quickly fell into apostasy after the death of the last apostle or during the "dark ages," and that a new Church had to be started by some Reformer or Prophet; but such claims contradict the very words of Christ Himself. Jesus not only said, "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18), but he also promised "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

So how can we find the original New Testament Church that was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and that received the promise of Christ that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)? The answer to this question is simple: You will find the New Testament Church in the pages of the New Testament. Open your Bible and look at the churches in the New Testament. What Church are the churches found in the New Testament part of today? Baptist? Pentecostal? Methodist? Lutheran? Episcopal? Presbyterian? Roman Catholic? Something else?

The indigenous Christians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, the Mother Church of all Christians, are members of the Orthodox Church. The indigenous Christians in Antioch "where the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26) are Orthodox. The Christians of Cyprus and Crete where the Apostle Paul took early missionary journeys are Orthodox. The Christians of Asia Minor where the seven churches of the Book of Revelation are found are Orthodox. The Christians of Corinth, Athens and other Greek cities where the Apostle Paul planted churches and to whom he preached or wrote epistles are all Orthodox. All of these New Testament churches are, and always have been, part of the Orthodox Church. They all have a verifiable and unbroken history dating back to New Testament times, and there never was a moment in history when they were not Orthodox churches. The only church spoken of in the entire New Testament that is not an Orthodox church today is Rome, and Rome was fully Orthodox for a thousand years before falling away into schism in AD 1054. Rome was Orthodox for longer than she has been separated from the Orthodox Church. The Church of Rome was an Orthodox Church for longer than she has been known as the Roman Catholic Church.

For the first thousand years of Christianity there was one Church - the Orthodox Church. This is an indisputable fact of history. Then, having unilaterally changed the Nicene Creed, the Church of Rome fell away into schism in AD 1054, eventually becoming known as the Roman Catholic Church. Having separated from the Orthodox Church, Rome continued to change the Faith, introducing novel doctrines such as purgatory and indulgences, leading to the Protestant Reformation in AD 1517. But the Protestant Reformation was really a revolution rather than a reformation because rather than reforming the Roman Church they created new denominations. The Protestant Reformers eliminated one pope, but through their novel doctrines of sola scripture and private interpretation of the Scriptures they essentially abolished all authority and made every individual protestant his or her own pope, causing ecclesiastical chaos. Beginning with the Protestant Reformation in 1517, Christianity in the West began to splinter until today there are literally thousands of separate and competing denominations, with five new denominations being organized every week. In addition, there are uncountable numbers of independent churches. The Lord Jesus Christ established one Church, promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it, and commanded His disciples to "hear the church" (Matt. 18:17). All of the others are man-made denominations that arose many centuries after Christ. A human foundation means a human organization, and a human organization means a human and therefore a changing Faith.

Beside this chaos in Western Christendom, there remains the 300 million-member Orthodox Church. The word Orthodox means both "correct doctrine" and "correct worship," and both the New Testament and history demonstrate that the Orthodox Church, with its unbroken history dating back to New Testament times, is the New Testament Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. Our Lord Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that promise has been kept. Many Western Christians sadly know little about the Orthodox Church, but what they do know is that it is an "Eastern" Church and that it refuses to change with the times. Eastern? Of course, it is Eastern. Christianity originated in the Holy Land and the Middle East. Christianity has its roots firmly planted in the East, not in Western Europe or the United States. The Orthodox Church is an Eastern Church because Christianity is Eastern, and it does not change with the times because it has an unchanging message for an ever-changing world. Rather than conforming itself to the world, the Orthodox Church seeks to transform the world by the Light of Christ.

Although the Orthodox Church has its roots firmly planted in the East, it is also the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ. The word Catholic means both "Universal" and "Whole and Complete," and the Orthodox Church is the One Church for all people of all races and nations, proclaiming an unchanging Faith for all time. Within the Orthodox Church there are believers from every race on earth. The Orthodox Church is made up of people of many nations and cultures who worship God in many languages and according to various liturgical rites. Although the Eastern Rite predominates, especially since the Great Schism (the falling away of Rome) in 1054, there are also many Orthodox Christians in the West who worship according to the Western Rite in a completely Western cultural setting - an ancient Eastern Faith lived and shared in a Western cultural context. There are Western Rite churches and monasteries in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, on the continent of Europe, and in Australia and New Zealand, and their numbers are growing. All Orthodox Christians of whatever nation, culture or rite, share the same unchanging and unchangeable "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

Why it is heterodox

A little over a thousand years ago (1014 A.D.) the Roman Catholic Church succumbed to a temptation that had been
unsettling her for several hundred years previous and officially inserted the innovative Filioque clause in their recitation of the
of the Creed for the first time in a papal Mass.

This event marked what many consider the hard beginning of Rome’s schism which would reach fruition in 1054 A.D. Rome had now officially allowed a new understanding regarding the relationship within the Godhead to be inserted into the Creed in violation of the doctrinal formulations of the Great Ecumenical Councils. It also tacitly asserted the authority of the Roman Pontiff to override the Church’s firmly established understanding and ecumenical consensus. Consequently, Rome estranged herself from the other four great Patriarchal Catholic Sees and departed Orthodox Catholic consensus.
he genesis of this innovation can be traced back to two isolated local Council of Bishops in Toledo Spain 633 & 653 A.D. A regional group of western bishops unilaterally authorized the novel addition which wrongly states the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession is not uniquely from the Father but this procession is also from the Son thereby contradicting the Catholic Church’s witness and teaching expressed by the Ecumenical Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils of 325 and 381 A.D. which teaches the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as emanating from the Father.

The Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father, who is the fountainhead of the Godhead is the source and cause of The Holy Spirit's eternal procession. Likewise, the Son's being eternally begotten of the Father. Should we also add another Filioque stating the Son is eternally begotten of the Father "and the Holy Spirit"? To do either hopelessly confuses the proper distinction of persons in the Godhead within what is ultimately an unfathomable mystery. We have no more business saying the Son is eternally begotten of both the Father and Holy Spirit as we would confessing a dual procession of the Holy Spirit being from both the Father and Son.

Beside the problems this presents theologically the Church’s third Ecumenical Council held in Ephesus in 431 A.D. to deal with the Nestorian heresy made an emphatic point to uphold the two previous councils and forcefully condemned any tampering with the wording of the Creed with solemn anathemas.

The Bishop of Rome Sixtus III concurred and accepted the absolute authority of the Church’s third ecumenical council and for many years thereafter so did his successors.
Statements and practice over the subsequent centuries would illustrate Rome’s troubling inconsistency in the matter.
Sometimes agreeing with the ancient Catholic Tradition and ecumenical consensus, other times wrongly defending the indefensible corrupt addition. Eminent Latin Churchmen like Alcuin, foreseeing the problems with such an interpolation said the following, “Beloved brethren look well to the sects of the Spanish error; follow in the steps of the holy Fathers; insert nothing new into the Creed of the Catholic Faith, and in religious functions be not pleased with traditions unknown in ancient times” He wrote this in 804 A.D.

Pope Leo III, five years later agreeing with and echoing Alcuin’s sentiments commissioned an engraving of the Creed upon two tablets of silver in both Greek and Latin hanging them in St. Peter’s Church minus the novel filioque and inscribed beneath the tablets, “I Leo have put up these tablets for the love and preservation of the Orthodox Faith. The Holy Gospel of St. John definitively affirms the ancient Apostolic witness of the unalterable dogma which the Holy
Orthodox Catholic Church steadfastly upholds and which no local synod or single bishop has the authority to amend. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me” John 15:26

While arguments from Roman Catholic theologians have often tried to justify the insertion of the “Filioque” clause as an attempt to further clarify an understanding or even resist heresy it is clearly shown to be neither useful let alone helpful. Instead it became the primary catalyst for Rome’s ongoing estrangement from Catholic Tradition and her ongoing departure from The Faith once for all delivered to the saints Jude 1:3 Abbe Guette’ in his excellent book, [The Papacy: It’s Historic Origen and Primitive Relations With the Eastern Churches] speaking the mind of Catholic Tradition says, “The dogmatic truths of Christianity relating to the very essence of God—that is, of the Infinite—are necessarily mysterious; hence no one should presume to teach them of his own authority. Even the Church herself only preserves them as she has received them. Revelation is a deposit confided by God to His Church and not a philosophical synthesis which may be modified.

WHAT DOES THE WORD "EUCHARIST" MEAN?

The word Eucharist comes from the Greek and means Thanksgiving. The Lord's Supper is called the Holy Eucharist because when Christ instituted it He gave thanks, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

THE PLACE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

The Holy Eucharist is the principal act of Christian worship as it is the one Service instituted by Christ Himself. Other religions have prayer, readings, hymns and sermons, but only Christians celebrate the Eucharist. Following the example of the Apostles and early Christians, the Church has assembled on the Lord's Day (Sunday) week by week for nearly 2,000 years to celebrate the Holy Eucharist. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, in the breaking of bread [the Eucharist], and in prayers" (Acts 2:42).

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION

In the Sacrament of Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Christ are received. At the Last Supper the Lord Jesus Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." He did not say, "This represents my body" or "This is a symbol of my blood." Jesus said, "'I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.' The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?' Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven - not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:48-58).

Just like today, many of the disciples who heard these words would not accept them. "Therefore, many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" (John 6:60). Yet Jesus did not take His words back, or explain that they were only meant to be taken "symbolically." And just like today, from that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." (John 6:66). The Apostles and early Christians understood that Christ meant his words to be taken literally. The Sacrament of Holy Communion does not merely represent the Body and Blood of Christ, but actually presents the Body and Blood of Christ. The
true Body and Blood of Christ is received in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (I Cor. 10:16). Because Christ is really present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, St. Paul goes on to warn, "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (I Cor. 11:27-29).

The early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and so did all Christians everywhere for some 1,500 years until the Protestant Reformation in Western Europe in the 16th century.
St. Ignatius, an early Church Father, lived from AD 30 to 107. He was Bishop of Antioch, and was martyred for his faith. He was a disciple of the Apostle John. While awaiting martyrdom he wrote a number of epistles (letters) to various churches. To the Church in Ephesus he wrote, "obey the bishop and presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but that we should live forever in Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Ephesians, c. AD 105).

In his Epistle to the Romans, (c. AD 105), St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) wrote, “And this food is called among us the Eucharist... For not as common bread and
common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh" (First Apology).

St. Cyril was an early Bishop of Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom. Around the year AD 350 he delivered introductory lectures to his classes of catechumens. Regarding the Eucharist he said, "The bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the invocation of the holy and adorable Trinity, were simple bread and wine; but, after the invocation, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes the blood of Christ" (Mystagogical Lecture 1.7).
St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) said, "I am mindful of my promise. For I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine, the Lord Christ willed to commend his Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins"

(Sermons).

WHO CAN CELEBRATE THE HOLY EUCHARIST?

In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (c. AD 105), St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote, "See that ye follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [the priests] as ye would the apostles; and
reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [celebrated] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he entrusted it [a priest]."

The Orthodox Church is the historic Church which Christ Himself established. We have a verifiable and unbroken history going back nearly 2,000 years. We still believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion and our bishops and priests still celebrate the Holy Eucharist every Lord's Day.

The Scriptures Jesus Quoted

Introduction

Before we begin examining this topic let me pose two questions. Do you believe it is important to come as close as possible to using the same inspired texts Jesus himself read quoted from during his ministry? If available, shouldn’t Christians desire even insist upon those biblical texts in favor of any others?
If inaccurate incomplete texts missing paragraphs or entire missing books in the translation you are using is of no concern then read no further. But should the integrity and veracity of sacred scripture be important then this brief examination may be enlightening and perhaps in some ways disturbing for those who believe in the importance of God’s holy written word.
Many Christians are unaware of the actual Old Testament texts that Jesus himself quotes from and that the Apostles often refer to in their own epistles. The most accurate and ancient compilation of these original Hebrew texts can be found in a Greek translation used extensively for almost three centuries before the birth of Christ.
This collection of sacred scriptures is known as the Septuagint or the LXX. It is an inspired Greek translation of ancient Hebrew texts, assembled in Alexandria Egypt almost 300 years before our Savior’s Incarnation. Before considering this let’s first examine where the Old Testament most Protestant Christians trust originated and the trustworthiness of those behind its dissemination.

The Origin of the Texts You Rely On

What could possibly be lacking in the bible you rely on? There are many serious areas of concern especially when examining the O.T. translations based upon the Masoretic text and then comparing their words referenced by New Testament writers. Major differences quickly become apparent. In some instances, such as Heb. 10:5-7 a central Christian dogma foretold in the Psalms is referenced but when you look in most Old Testament translations it isn’t there and the writer of Hebrews seems to basing dogmatic truth on something completely nonsensical. I will prove this to you a little further on in this treatise.

So where did your Old Testament scripture come from? If you are like many bible trusting Christians myself included, you may have assumed your bible is an accurate translation of the ancient and original Hebrew. Like me, you may also have believed they were drawing from the same sources Jesus and his  Apostles read and quoted when they proclaimed him the Messiah and the One who fulfilled its inspired testimony?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. But don’t take my word for it. Examine the multiple varied and significant discrepancies for yourself. After doing so you may be drawn to a surprising conclusion.

Before examining the more complete and reliable Septuagint let’s briefly  examine the recent and by comparatively “modern” Masoretic Text and see if it has reasonable claim for being the most trustworthy source of God’s inspired word.

The Masoretic Text is a completed 10th century editing of the Rabbinic Hebrew Bible by Christ denying Jewish Rabbis begun after the destruction of The Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. In no small part it was a blatant attempt to obfuscate  
Christian claims being drawn from the already widely accepted (In both Christian and Jewish circles) Septuagint. This becomes apparent when you compare passages quoted in the New Testament and compare them to those in the later revised and obviously altered Masoretic texts.

This final editing was not completed in its current form until The Tiberian Masoretes codified their corrupted and later sourced materials. This became the foundation for all modern editions of the Hebrew Bible and Protestant Old  Testaments. Again, this compilation of non-Christian Jewish Rabbis was not even finalized until almost 1000 years after the Nativity of our Savior.  [When God Spoke Greek, Oxford University Press pg.7]

As a consequence, much of the scripture Christians rely on to give a true and complete inspired account of God’s dealings with his chosen people and convey the full testimony of the Prophets regarding the future Deliverer and Messiah is missing crucial information.

If important biblical passages or entire books are absent from your bible, where did they go and why were they excluded?  Are they irretrievably lost and gone forever? The answer is an emphatic no! There survives a reliable and widely available collection of Old Testament scriptures in a Greek translation of a more ancient Hebrew textual tradition translated many generations before Christ’s Incarnation. It is the same collection of inspired books used by the ancient Jewish diaspora including those in Palestine and extensively quoted by the New Testament writers. Here is its story.

The History of the Septuagint

Septuagint is the Greek word for the number seventy. This collection of translated Hebrew texts, is the inspired work of seventy Jewish scholars prior to our Lord’s Incarnation. I will deal briefly with this tradition in just a moment. Following is a brief historical backdrop.

In 330 B.C. one of the most significant military campaigns in history took place. A young Macedonian general history knows as Alexander the Great vanquished the Persian army under King Darius. It was an event that reshaped the Mediterranean world and western civilization. Greek cultural dominance now expanded and flourished in this newly Hellenized region for almost 1700 years until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D.

It was the remarkable conquests by Alexander the Great which necessitated the translation of ancient Hebrew biblical texts into Greek. The reason being the Greek language had now become the common tongue of the entire region of the world including the Jewish diaspora. Hebrew was no longer the common language of the Jews during this period. In fact, this would be the case until the founding of the modern Israeli state in the mid-20th century. Even during the time of Christ Aramaic and Greek were the predominant tongues in Palestine. Hebrew was the liturgical language of the temple and its religious authorities but not the tongue of the common people.

The vast majority of Jews would know as much Hebrew as modern-day Roman Catholics might know Latin. Hebrew scriptures would be no more helpful than the Vulgate (Latin Bible) would be for me growing up Roman Catholic in America understanding only English.

If the offspring of Abraham sincerely desired access to a much more ancient and authentic witness of both the law and prophets the Septuagint was the go-to source for reliability and the fullness of God’s holy word.

Their use of and accessibility to much older Hebrew texts by the Jewish Alexandrian scholars relied upon more ancient and authentic texts than the later corrupted manuscripts available to either the medieval Masoretes or their predecessors who would begin their revisions around the time of the destruction of the Jewish temple almost four hundred years after the Septuagint was introduced.

We know this to be true because of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the early 20th century. These scrolls authenticated an ancient Hebrew textual tradition which differs in some ways dramatically from the documents put forward by the centuries later Christ denying Jewish Masoretes. It is now indisputably clear that the Essene Jewish community near the Dead Sea preserved a far more venerable reliable and trustworthy collection of sacred texts. Texts shown to be almost identical to the Septuagint.
The Hellenization of the Mediterranean after Alexander’s conquest precipitated the need for the Jewish scriptures to be translated into the common language of the people especially for those of the Jewish diaspora. The Greek language was overwhelmingly the principal tongue of commerce and communication and would continue to be so even during later Roman rule. All New Testament scripture with the possible exception of Matthew’s gospel, were also originally penned in koine Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean world.
Only fifty years after Alexander’s victory over the Persians during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Aristeas, a pagan Greek serving in his court produces the first written record documenting the origin of the Septuagint. Ptolemy he says, sought the help of Eleazar the Jewish High priest and asked him to assist in  assembling Hebrew scholars from the twelve tribes of Israel.  This group of scholars chosen from each Jewish tribe was taken to an island by the  administrator of the famous Alexandrian Library where they completed the translation from the ancient Hebrew texts.

Now while some may want to dispute the details of this account, one thing can be said with certainty: A Greek translation was commissioned and widely accepted as authoritative among the Jews of the entire Mediterranean world up until and for many years after the dawn of Christianity. It was even more importantly almost exclusively the scriptures Christ and the Apostles quoted from and the entire Christian Church relied upon for its first fifteen hundred years.

The rest of this booklet will dedicate itself in showing how the Septuagint was and still is the scripture of Christ’s Church. It does not represent some or fractured portions of God’s holy word but it’s fullest counsel. After you make the comparisons for yourself my hope is a sincere desire will be kindled in you to embrace those scriptures Christ Himself quoted and his holy Apostles proclaimed as authoritative rather than accepting the later corruptions of those who rejected God’s Son.

The first thing you may notice is that the Septuagint includes nine more books than the bible you are currently using. These books of scripture were often quoted and directly referred to as scripture by New Testament writers. These writings were understood to be God breathed and inspired by all ancient Christians in both the East and West. They were not seriously disputed as such for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

The rejection of the Church’s Bible would have to wait for radical protestant reformers who rather than just rightfully calling for the reform of medieval papal errors also ended up throwing out more than one proverbial baby with the bath water as demonstrated in this particular instance.

While some misinformed Christians refer to these books as Apocryphal or noncanonical alleging, they were inserted by nefarious Roman Catholic authorities hundreds of years after Christ, nothing could be further from historical reality. If one wants to espouse and uphold such nonsense then they also need to refute the New Testament writers, including St. Paul. For he obviously thought otherwise when validating those very same texts in his own New Testament epistles.

Here is a short quote that introduced an edition of the King James Bible called, “Potters Standard Edition” in the year 1810. While the King James Version of the Bible is not reliant on the Septuagint, listen to what is being admitted. Remember this when comparing the King James, NIV, Revised Standard, New American Standard or a whole variety of other translations based on the Masoretic text, to an English translation of the Septuagint like The Orthodox Study Bible.

“The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it had attained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helped to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Furthermore, it establishes beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and His inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the word into the common tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech hear the wonderful things of the Lord. All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God’s inspired Word, is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version.”
From this point forward, let’s examine a few of what scholars estimate to be over 300 instances where New Testament writers rely upon the Septuagint as their authoritative source. At the same time, I will contrast the Masoretic deficient and altered texts that are now used as the basis of most Old Testament translations.

The Miraculous Conception of Christ

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Is. 7:14.

In the Masoretic text of Isaiah, the sign which the Lord is to give isn’t all that much of a sign. It states the sign or miracle is, “Behold a maiden will be with child”. Is there anything unusual, out of the ordinary or unexpected about a maiden being with child? This is pretty much a standard everyday occurrence. Certainly nothing uniquely miraculous or extraordinary unless of course it is actually a virgin who will be with child.

Compare this with Matt. 1:22-23 which says, “Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying, behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means “God with us”. Now that’s a sign!

If you now look up that verse in Isaiah in the KJV or most other translations based on the Masoretic text with the exception of the Revised Standard Version RSV - you’ll see they all say “virgin”. This, however is a dishonest substitution by Christian publishers using the Masoretic Text; who re-insert virgin for maiden. In the KJV, and most other modern bibles based on the Masoretic, it is an attempt to uphold a Christian dogma. A virgin conceiving is not found in the Masoretic text on which these modern Old Testaments are based. In this case you now have Christian translators tampering with the previously altered texts deceptively imposed on us by non-believing Jewish rabbis. Confusing, isn’t it?

This confusion can be done away with if relying upon the more ancient Septuagint which clearly states the sign Isaiah foretold is, “a virgin will be with child”. Instead of trusting translations of later corrupted Hebrew texts compiled by Jewish authorities who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah and His miraculous virgin birth, why not simply embrace those scriptures accepted and quoted by the Gospel writers to begin with?

We have very good evidence of Jewish attempts to discredit and discard the Septuagint in the 2nd century. This being 800 years before the Masoretes during the time of a rapidly expanding Christian Church. St. Justin Martyr an early Christian apologist investigated a number of Old Testament texts in various Jewish Synagogues. He concluded that the same unbelieving Jewish Establishment who rejected Christ were not only now abandoning the Septuagint but tampering with the Hebrew texts they possessed. Strongly insinuating a willful attempt to de-Christianize much of its content. [“Which Bible Is Better” LuLu Press  pg.25  Fr. Joseph Gleason]

This next example will help explain their uneasiness with the Septuagint. If you were a non-believing Jew - especially a Jewish religious authority who rejects Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah - you too might be inclined to dismiss, discredit, and then discard the inspired authority of the following book. Consider its harsh indictment and unflattering testimony.  Read carefully the prophetic words.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 “Let us lie in ambush for the righteous man, because he is useless to us and opposes our deeds; he denounces us for our sins against the law and accuses us of our sins against our upbringing. He claims to have knowledge of God, and he calls himself a child of the Lord, he has become a burden to us because his life is unlike that of others; for his paths go in a different direction. We are considered by him as a hybrid, and he avoids our ways as something immoral.
He considers the last things of the righteous as blessed and pretends that God is his Father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us put these last things to the test at the end of his life. For if the righteous man is the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of those, who oppose him.

Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may know his gentleness and test his patient endurance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death for there shall be a visitation because of his words.”

Anyone familiar with the Gospels and Christ’s dealings with the Pharisees immediately sees the hatred and opposition of the Jewish religious authorities.It is here vividly portrayed and foretold many generations before the Incarnation. Unmistakably showing how Christ’s adversaries will rise to fiercely persecute and even put to death God’s Anointed.

Read the prophetic words again carefully and see how precisely they describe those events yet to take place, down to the final insults and taunts this righteous man who calls himself the son of God endures at their hands. A man who denounced them for their sins and who claimed to have a unique knowledge of God and whose ways were not theirs. Open Matthew 27:41-44 and compare its account to the Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20. How could this be denied as messianic prophecy and inspired scripture?

If you are looking for this scripture in your King James Bible, you will not find it. If you happen to have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible an excellent English translation of the Septuagint which contains all the scriptures there it is.
While I could continue with additional examples showing how the New Testament references books and crucial information missing from your bible, I will relay just one more for the sake of brevity.

The writer of the book of Hebrews in chapter 11 lays out for us and extols the heroic champions of God’s Kingdom and how these men and women in the Old Testament are for Christians virtuous examples of fortitude and true faith. He names many, although not all specifically: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses along with others including Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. Others, like Daniel and his companions, he does not name but still recounts their heroism and deeds.

“Who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release so that they might obtain a better resurrection. Hebrews 11:33-35"

The writer of Hebrews is referring to whom? The answer is obvious. They are all Old Testament heroes of the Faith. He is drawing all these examples from the scriptures with which he is so intimately familiar. You can correlate all of those named and unnamed champions of faith to bible characters in your Old Testament, right?

The answer is no, if using scriptures other than those contained in the Septuagint. You will not find the referenced “Who were tortured not accepting their release so that they may attain a better resurrection” Try as you may, they are nowhere to be found in your KJV, NIV or a host of other bibles. So where are those biblical Old Testament champions of Faith, who were tortured yet unwilling to capitulate to their tormentors, in order to obtain the promise of the resurrection? If you want to read this inspired and courageous account, open an Orthodox Study Bible and locate II Macabees 7 . There you find a woman named Solomonia and her seven sons, enduring torture and death at the hands of the wicked king Antiochus who promised them release if they would transgress the law of their fathers. They persevered and did not capitulate. They now await that better resurrection as recounted in the book of Hebrews.  A resurrection the brave mother bore witness to even as she beheld her sons being tortured and slain before her eyes. This hero proclaims, “Therefore, the Creator of the world, who formed man in the beginning and devised the origin of all things, will give both breath and life back to you in his mercy, since you now disregard yourself for the sake of his laws.” II Macabees 7:23

Putting aside these important and inspired missing books, what about the problems and deficiencies, associated with the Old Testament books you do use? I dealt with one concerning the miraculous virgin birth of our Savior and how the Masoretic texts on which most Old Testaments are based would alter a central dogma of the Church by indicating the sign spoken of in Isaiah was that a young maiden would conceive a child. Again, hardly a sign and one that disagrees with Matt:1:22-23

How Important Is the Incarnation?

Any professing Christian knows that this central truth is of paramount importance. If Christ had not condescended to take on our humanity fully and completely, we could never be partakers of his divinity and become by grace what he is by nature. He has reconciled us to God through his fleshly body through death in order to present us before him holy, blameless and beyond reproach Col. 1:22.

Obviously, such an important dogma would not only be revealed clearly in the New Testament but also foretold and implied as well in the Old. This is indeed the case but again only if your Old Testament is a translation the Septuagint.

The writer of Hebrews says as much in Hebrews 10:5-7 when speaking about the Messiah coming into the world. He is quoting Psalm 40:6-8.

“Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says Sacrifice and offering you have not desired but a body you have prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, behold I have come. In the scroll of the book, it is written of me, to do your will O God.”

Now look at Psalm 40:6-8 in your bible. Does it say anything similar to what Hebrews says, or do you read something like this? “Sacrifice and meal offering you have not desired, my ears have you opened” Is the writer of the book of Hebrews intentionally misquoting or twisting scripture or introducing a false dogma about Christ taking on our humanity? If “my ears have you opened” is a correct rendering of that verse in Psalm 40 then chapter 10 of Hebrews makes no sense and what is being asserted is non-consequential.
The 10th chapter of Hebrews reveals that the psalmist foretold the coming Messiah having a body prepared for him. A body destined to be offered and broken for us. The very Incarnate Word and Son of God, Jesus Christ. Why is this missing from Psalm 40? Why is this great prophecy and central dogma of the Christian Faith absent from your bible? It shouldn’t be and wouldn’t be if you were reading and relying on the same texts the writer of Hebrews was.
Here is how Psalm 40:6 reads in the Orthodox Study Bible, which is actually Psalm 39:7-8 in the Septuagint, “Sacrifice and offering you did not will: But a body you prepared for me; a whole burnt offering and a sin offering you did not require. Then I said behold I come; it is written of me in the volume of the book.”

Is the author of Hebrews deceived for relying upon the veracity of the Septuagint and its witness regarding the Incarnation of Jesus Christ? Should we instead accept as inspired the medieval Jewish distortions which substitutes “my ears have you opened” rather than the revelation regarding this central dogma of our Faith?

Was Christ Misquoting Scripture When Announcing His Messianic Ministry?

“And when he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and he stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him and he opened the book and found the place where it was written. “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. And he closed the book gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and all the eyes, of all in the synagogue, were fixed on him. And he began to say to them; today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” Luke 4:16-21

Jesus Christ himself both affirms the words he reads from the prophet Isaiah as scripture and him being the one who fulfills it when he says, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Now look in your bible. Turn to Isaiah 61:1-2 and read the words of the prophet Isaiah that Jesus quotes from in Luke 4:16-21. Does it mention anything about the Messiah bringing recovery of sight to the blind? Should we accept the testimony of Jesus Christ as correct or that of unbelieving Jewish rabbis’? Jesus says, when quoting from the book of Isaiah, that this scripture foretells a unique sign being performed by the Lord’s Anointed. Is this what God’s holy prophet declares in your Old Testament? Unless you have an English translation of the Septuagint, it is not to be found in your translation of Isaiah 61.

Is it not an important sign that would identify the coming Messiah? Do the Gospel writers record its fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus?  Did they understand its significance? See, Matt. 9:27-31, Matt. 12:22, Matt. 20:30-34, Mark 8:22-25, Mark 10: 46-52, Luke 7:21 and John 9:1-41
The answer to all three of those questions is a resounding yes. Yet many Christians rely upon an Old Testament that is missing what Christ himself says is an important sign and proof of who He is.

See how meaningful this miracle of the blind receiving sight and how it will reveal God’s Christ as being the one who would perform this sign. Read the Gospel of John chapter nine about the man born blind. In verse two, Jesus explains to his disciples that it was not this man’s sin or his parents that was the cause of his being born blind but rather,  “so that the works (signs) of God might be displayed.” Just like the prophet Isaiah foretold in chapter 61 (The Septuagint) and which Jesus proclaimed to be fulfilled by himself in the Gospel of Luke 4:16-21
This great miracle is so compelling that it even caused dissension among his accusers. In John 9:16, his adversaries are forced to question themselves. “Therefore, some of the Pharisees said, “this man is not from God because he does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, how can a man who is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them”.

John the Baptist, as he languished in prison awaiting his execution at the hands of Herod sent some of his disciples to Jesus so that they might hear an answer to this question which he bid them to ask. “Are you the Coming One, or should we look for someone else?” Matt. 11:2-5 Some early Christian fathers, claim John did this not because he was in doubt for he with resolute faith strongly proclaimed who Jesus was and knew him to be the Christ. Intending instead that his disciples should hear this personally from our Savior’s lips. For they needed to ready themselves to follow Him because John would soon suffer martyrdom having completed his mission preparing the way for God’s Christ.

Whether it was for that purpose or because John himself was having his own crisis of faith listen  to the first thing out of our Lord’s mouth as he responds to their question, “Go and report to John the things which you see and hear, the blind receives sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the dead are raised up and the poor have the Gospel preached to them. Once again, quoting the prophet Isaiah’s words, as recorded in the Septuagint. This powerful sign of recovery of sight to the blind has great prophetic importance and meaning for any who knew the scripture and awaited the consolation of Israel.
Finally, consider the bold words of the young man cured of blindness as he contends with those who now want him to also condemn Jesus for doing this great sign on the Sabbath. You have to respect his defiance. He has had enough of Christ’s false accusers’ nonsense and says to them, “Well here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where he is from, and yet he has opened my eyes. We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing, and does his will he hears him. Since the beginning of time, it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind.  If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” John 9:30-33 Obviously this is a singularly important proof which was to be shown by the Messiah and has now been fulfilled by the One who is the promised Deliverer of Israel.
If you love the scriptures and believe that tampering with their words by either adding or deleting is a serious offense even as scripture itself warns (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Jeremiah 26:2, Revelation 22:18-19) then you need to immediately get your hands on a copy of a good English  translation of the Septuagint. The Orthodox Study Bible by Thomas Nelson  Publishers is of one many English translations though by no means the only one.

I pray this brief introduction, has inspired a desire for further inquiry and study. I also highly recommend, “Which Bible is Better” by Fr. Joseph Gleason, LuLu Press Publishers. It is a complete and more in-depth treatment of numerous scriptural comparisons and covers some areas this brief treatment does not.

After careful consideration and prayer, you decide who is the more reliable witness to the person of Jesus Christ and the Apostolic Faith? Is it the scriptural tradition quoted by Christ his disciples and His Church from the very beginning or the more recent compilation of texts from less ancient sources assembled and edited by non-believing Jewish Rabbis’ a thousand years after Christ’s Incarnation?

Fr. Kevin