Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

[atpollard]

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

Maccabees has stories of Purgatory that are not in any of the teachings of Jesus.
Are you certain that ALL of the stories in the Qu’ran are not found in the Bible? [I freely admit that most are gnostic nonsense, but that is the point that I am making. You are using the fact that Maccabees MAY contain one biblical fact about how some people died to claim that it is a book of inspired (God breathed) scripture that we should hold as infallible truth.]

 

[Josiah]

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.

Interesting...

verse divisions didn't exist in 1560. And yet the CLAIM is that this Study Bible is THE original, authentic, unaltered tome of the Geneva Bible from 1560... which the claim made is taken FROM the KJV (which was first produced in 1611; so somehow the KJV got in some time machine and went back 51 years so that the Geneva could do a copy/paste).

This whole things is really fishy....

 

[Albion]

Maccabees has stories of Purgatory that are not in any of the teachings of Jesus.

Sorry, no. Maccabees does not describe Purgatory, refer to Purgatory, or mention the name Purgatory. Purgatory is an invention of the High Middle Ages.

 

[Andrew]

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

So then why are so many of the books found in the Septuagint missing in the modern day translations?

 

[NathanH83]

Interesting...

verse divisions didn't exist in 1560. And yet the CLAIM is that this Study Bible is THE original, authentic, unaltered tome of the Geneva Bible from 1560... which the claim made is taken FROM the KJV (which was first produced in 1611; so somehow the KJV got in some time machine and went back 51 years so that the Geneva could do a copy/paste).

This whole things is really fishy....

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Nobody ever claimed that the Geneva Bible has taken anything FROM the KJV. I've said it 3 times already. Nobody ever claimed that. And yes, the verse separations were introduced with the Geneva Bible. It has verse divisions. Go to a Bible museum and learn some history. For crying out loud, you're like a broken record.

 

[NathanH83]

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

Again, another lie. Not every scholar is in agrement. Clearly the scholars who translated the KJV beleived Paul was the author. Many church fathers beleived that Paul was the author. Others today beleive that Luke is the author because some of Luke's writing style is found in Hebrews. The most likely conclusion to that is that Paul authored it in Hebrew, but Luke translated into Greek, which is what early church fathers believed. The authorship of Hebrews is not the main point here anyway.

 

[RichWh1]

So then why are so many of the books found in the Septuagint missing in the modern day translations?

When the seventy two translated the Hebrew Scripture into Greek they added deutero canonical books that were not in the Tenakh (Law Writings Prophets) the Hebrew Scripture is limited to those writings inspired before the close of the canon of Scripture. (425BC)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

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.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that even though every single verse in Hebrews 11 is talking about some event in Hebrew Old Testament scripture, nonetheless, this one single verse, verse 35, where it talks about men being tortured not accepting deliverance...this one verse is talking about mere history from the book of Maccabees. But the rest of the verses in the whole entire chapter are talking about scripture. Oh, but this one verse here, we're going to single this out, and set it aside, and say it's NOT talking about scripture, but just about mere history.

Is this really what you're endorsing? For real? And I'm supposed to be convinced by this?

Why on earth did so many church fathers from the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries quote the book of Maccabees and call it "holy scripture"?

If it's "just history" then why on Earth would they do that?

If you really want to continue to live in fantasy land, then go right ahead. But I'm not convinced.

 

[RichWh1]

Hebrews 11 is about the faith of the Hebrew people, not necessarily all biblical people of Hebrew descent.
That does not make The writing of Hebrews any less inspired


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

When the seventy two translated the Hebrew Scripture into Greek they added deutero canonical books that were not in the Tenakh (Law Writings Prophets) the Hebrew Scripture is limited to those writings inspired before the close of the canon of Scripture. (425BC)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So there was a 400 year gap of silence? In which other books were written and added to the Septuagint but are actually uninspired? Why would they add them or teach the Greek speaking Jews these "non inspired" books?

 

[psalms 91]

As to why remember that the religious leaders in Jesus time were compared to serpents and were rebuked for being far from God so my guess would be that they were following their own minds like many of us do when we doint hear from God

 

[RichWh1]

So there was a 400 year gap of silence? In which other books were written and added to the Septuagint but are actually uninspired? Why would they add them or teach the Greek speaking Jews these "non inspired" books?

I am not sure why. Perhaps because they were Jewish writings written in Greek that the seventy scholars decided to add them.
Let me do more study on the subject.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I am not sure why. Perhaps because they were Jewish writings written in Greek that the seventy scholars decided to add them.
Let me do more study on the subject.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think there was any gap. I think that the unbelieving Jews wanted to say that scripture stops with Ezra so that they could discredit all scripture that came after, including the New Testament.

There was no gap of silence. Just Jewish conspiracy to corrupt scripture.

 

[Albion]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that even though every single verse in Hebrews 11 is talking about some event in Hebrew Old Testament scripture, nonetheless, this one single verse, verse 35, where it talks about men being tortured not accepting deliverance...this one verse is talking about mere history from the book of Maccabees. But the rest of the verses in the whole entire chapter are talking about scripture. Oh, but this one verse here, we're going to single this out, and set it aside, and say it's NOT talking about scripture, but just about mere history.

Is this really what you're endorsing? For real? And I'm supposed to be convinced by this?

I have no idea what you're going on about. What do you not understand about Scripture making references to other sources of information that are not Scripture?
Why, as you see it, is that impossible?

 

[NathanH83]

I have no idea what you're going on about. What do you not understand about Scripture making references to other sources of information that are not Scripture?
Why, as you see it, is that impossible?

Everything else that the author of Hebrews mentions in chapter 11 is found in scripture. The context implies that the events mentioned in verse 35 are also scripture. Early Church fathers considered Maccabees to be scripture because they used the Septuagint, which contained Maccabees. They specifically quoted Maccabees and called it scripture when they did. If you can't understand that, then I'd say you're just playing dumb, which shows your level of dishonesty.

 

[RichWh1]

Hebrews 11:35 is taken from 1 Kings & 2Kings
Ver. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again
As the widow of Zarephath, and the Shunammite, ( 1 Kings 17:22 ) ( 2 Kings 4:34 2 Kings 4:35 ) . Their sons were really dead, and they received them alive gain, from the hands of the prophets, Elijah and Elisha, in the way of a resurrection, and by faith; by the faith of the prophets:

Verses 36-37 were taken from 1 and 2 Maccabees

others were tortured;
racked, or tympanized; referring to the sufferings of seven brethren, and their mother, in the times of Antiochus, recorded in 2 Maccabees 7 as appears from the kind of torment endured by them;

24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs. 25 But when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel the young man to save his life.'' (2 Maccabees 7)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Hebrews 11:35 is taken from 1 Kings & 2Kings
Ver. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again
As the widow of Zarephath, and the Shunammite, ( 1 Kings 17:22 ) ( 2 Kings 4:34 2 Kings 4:35 ) . Their sons were really dead, and they received them alive gain, from the hands of the prophets, Elijah and Elisha, in the way of a resurrection, and by faith; by the faith of the prophets:

Verses 36-37 were taken from 1 and 2 Maccabees

others were tortured;
racked, or tympanized; referring to the sufferings of seven brethren, and their mother, in the times of Antiochus, recorded in 2 Maccabees 7 as appears from the kind of torment endured by them;

24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs. 25 But when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel the young man to save his life.'' (2 Maccabees 7)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. And for the longest time, I could never figure out what Paul was talking about. Why? Because I had never read the book of Maccabees. Why? Because people told me that it's not scripture, so I never bothered reading it. See the problem there?

 

[Andrew]

Exactly. And for the longest time, I could never figure out what Paul was talking about. Why? Because I had never read the book of Maccabees. Why? Because people told me that it's not scripture, so I never bothered reading it. See the problem there?

good point

 

[atpollard]

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Nobody ever claimed that the Geneva Bible has taken anything FROM the KJV. I've said it 3 times already. Nobody ever claimed that. And yes, the verse separations were introduced with the Geneva Bible. It has verse divisions. Go to a Bible museum and learn some history. For crying out loud, you're like a broken record.

yup.

 

[NathanH83]

[QUOTE=atpollard;16