Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

[atpollard]

Doesn't Hebrews 11:35 make it sound like Paul considered Maccabees to be scripture?

Now that you explained your reasoning ... No. It makes it seem like the publisher of a bible 400 years ago believed that Hebrews referenced Maccabees.
Shall we also quote the footnotes in the first Mormon bible to see if there are any other Scriptures hidden from us?

 

[NathanH83]

Now that you explained your reasoning ... No. It makes it seem like the publisher of a bible 400 years ago believed that Hebrews referenced Maccabees.
Shall we also quote the footnotes in the first Mormon bible to see if there are any other Scriptures hidden from us?

Ok then. So you don't think the author of Hebrews was talking about Maccabees, even though the best of the best Bible scholars in all of England were convinced he was. Wow. You're wiser in your own eyes than all of them. Then tell me, big shot. What is the author talking about? Who were these men who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, so that they may obtain a better Resurrection? Sounds to me like Paul considered Maccabees to be scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Ok then. So you don't think the author of Hebrews was talking about Maccabees, even though the best of the best Bible scholars in all of England were convinced he was. Wow. You're wiser in your own eyes than all of them. Then tell me, big shot. What is the author talking about? Who were these men who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, so that they may obtain a better Resurrection? Sounds to me like Paul considered Maccabees to be scripture.

The question is not about what I think, it is about what God says.

Let me ask you ... What is Scripture?

If we are to discuss whether the Apocrypha should be viewed as scripture, it seems that we should start out with a firm grasp of exactly what scripture is.

 

[NathanH83]

The question is not about what I think, it is about what God says.

Let me ask you ... What is Scripture?

If we are to discuss whether the Apocrypha should be viewed as scripture, it seems that we should start out with a firm grasp of exactly what scripture is.

Stop dodging the question. Who is Paul talking about in Hebrews 11:35? Answer the question.

 

[atpollard]

Stop dodging the question. Who is Paul talking about in Hebrews 11:35? Answer the question.

Paul did not write Hebrews.
The writer of Hebrews appears to be referencing the events described in 2 Maccabees.
That proves that the writer of Hebrews believes (under divine inspiration) that the events he referenced did actually happen.
That does not make 2 Maccabees scripture.

If you can answer the question “WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?”, you will understand why.

 

[Andrew]

Paul did not write Hebrews.
The writer of Hebrews appears to be referencing the events described in 2 Maccabees.
That proves that the writer of Hebrews believes (under divine inspiration) that the events he referenced did actually happen.
That does not make 2 Maccabees scripture.

If you can answer the question “WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?”, you will understand why.

If Hebrews is referring to events in the book of Maccabees then it is in fact scripture, since when does scripture discuss non scripture writings?

 

[atpollard]

If Hebrews is referring to events in the book of Maccabees then it is in fact scripture, since when does scripture discuss non scripture writings?

What is SCRIPTURE?

 

[atpollard]

If Hebrews is referring to events in the book of Maccabees then it is in fact scripture, since when does scripture discuss non scripture writings?

Here is the flaw in your logic. Josephus, the first century Jewish Historian wrote about the events in the Maccabean War. Since Hebrews talks about an event in that Josephus also talks about, would that make Josephus writings also Scripture? There are also Gospels written in the fourth century that describe events that are described in the 4 Gospels we accept as scripture. They contain information that contradicts other information in the Gospels, but are they scripture as well. The Qu’ran contains stories about Abraham and Mary and Jesus that match events found in the Bible, so the Qu’ran must be scripture just like Maccabees is. Right?

 

[Andrew]

What is SCRIPTURE?

Holy Inspired writings put into many many books 'Ta Biblia'?

 

[Andrew]

Here is the flaw in your logic. Josephus, the first century Jewish Historian wrote about the events in the Maccabean War. Since Hebrews talks about an event in that Josephus also talks about, would that make Josephus writings also Scripture? There are also Gospels written in the fourth century that describe events that are described in the 4 Gospels we accept as scripture. They contain information that contradicts other information in the Gospels, but are they scripture as well. The Qu’ran contains stories about Abraham and Mary and Jesus that match events found in the Bible, so the Qu’ran must be scripture just like Maccabees is. Right?

The Koran has only gnostic stories that are not in any of the Holy scriptures

 

[NathanH83]

Paul did not write Hebrews.
The writer of Hebrews appears to be referencing the events described in 2 Maccabees.
That proves that the writer of Hebrews believes (under divine inspiration) that the events he referenced did actually happen.
That does not make 2 Maccabees scripture.

If you can answer the question “WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?”, you will understand why.

The best scholars in all of England were convinced that Paul wrote it. But I guess you know better than them.

So, if Paul mentions the events in 2 Maccabees right along the rest of Old Testament history, then could it be that when Paul said to Timothy "all scripture is God-breathed" that he might have been including 2 Maccabees?

 

[RichWh1]

The best scholars in all of England were convinced that Paul wrote it. But I guess you know better than them.

So, if Paul mentions the events in 2 Maccabees right along the rest of Old Testament history, then could it be that when Paul said to Timothy "all scripture is God-breathed" that he might have been including 2 Maccabees?

Biblical and language Scholars agree that the Book of Hebrews was not written by Paul, since the vocabulary is different from Paul’s other writings.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

So, if Paul mentions the events in 2 Maccabees right along the rest of Old Testament history, then could it be that when Paul said to Timothy "all scripture is God-breathed" that he might have been including 2 Maccabees?

There's no reason to conclude that, though. "All Scripture is God-breathed " is agreed to by almost all Christians adn the Apocrypha is worth reading even though it is not part of the Bible. There's nothing mysterious or contrary in that.

 

[Albion]

If Hebrews is referring to events in the book of Maccabees then it is in fact scripture, since when does scripture discuss non scripture writings?

It happens often. Sometimes it is something from ordinary life and not a religious writing, but there isn't any difference in principle.

See the Wikipedia article, Non-Canonical Books Referenced in the Bible, for more.







.

 

[Andrew]

Biblical and language Scholars agree that the Book of Hebrews was not written by Paul, since the vocabulary is different from Paul’s other writings.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regardless, Hebrews is still Holy inspired correct?

 

[RichWh1]

Regardless, Hebrews is still Holy inspired correct?

Yes it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

It happens often. Sometimes it is something from ordinary life and not a religious writing, but there isn't any difference in principle.

See the Wikipedia article, Non-Canonical Books Referenced in the Bible, for more.







.

Interesting, what's also interesting is the Septuagint being a word for word OT translation specifically transcribed for all of the greek speaking Jews, predating the Masoretic text, did these Jews believe the Septuagint as being inspired?

 

[RichWh1]

Interesting, what's also interesting is the Septuagint being a word for word OT translation specifically transcribed for all of the greek speaking Jews, predating the Masoretic text, did these Jews believe the Septuagint as being inspired?

The Septuagint is only a translation of the inspired Word of God; no translation is inspired, only the original writing

Let me add that most of the books contained in the Apocrypha had been written in Greek, not Hebrew since the Jewish people had lost the Hebrew language and only Levites retained the language since they copied the Scripture and were scribes

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

The Septuagint is only a translation of the inspired Word of God; no translation is inspired, only the original writing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, and these scribes translated from Hebrew text, the Word pf God, which included everything they recognized/canonized as Holy inspired correct?

 

[RichWh1]

Right, and these scribes translated from Hebrew text, the Word pf God, which included everything they recognized/canonized as Holy inspired correct?

Correct. The scribes were the only ones who retained their language since they were entrusted with copying the Scriptures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk