Did Jesus celebrate a holiday that comes from the apocrypha?

[NathanH83]

No. They and the tiny Amish community are the only ones on your list who are NOT Catholics!! What's more they do not constitute "lots and lots of non-Catholics." I do not know how you can possibly mix this up.


To embrace the Catholic version of the canon of Scripture as you do is to be sympathetic to the Catholic selection. It's not more complicated than that. And it's just a statement of fact.

3 and 4 Esdras are not accepted by Catholics.
Enoch is not accepted by Catholics.
Third and fourth Maccabees or not excepted by Catholics.

I’m open to these books belonging, just as the Ethiopian church accepts them.

 

[Josiah]

3 and 4 Esdras are not accepted by Catholics.
Enoch is not accepted by Catholics.
Third and fourth Maccabees or not excepted by Catholics.

I’m open to these books belonging, just as the Ethiopian church accepts them.

Your point: There is no agreement on which books are and are not "Deutero" or "Apocrypha.' For 1500 years, NO two denominations EVER agreed on this - on which books should be embraced or even for what if they are (and none cared, it was never an issue, because none of them particularly used them or cared about them).

Which is why many keep asking (but no one will answer) WHICH books? WHAT books, specifically, are we talking about when "apocrypha" is mention and which are we NOT talking about? AND if we do get an answer, no one agrees.


To the issue, it seems all agree that the festival Jesus celebrated does not come from ANY book. So I think we're done. This thread has ended. It can be closed (could have been a long time ago). There is total agreement, nope, the festival does not come from a book.... and a book accurately relating history doesn't mean it is ergo canonical Scripture. We're done with the issue here.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Your point: There is no agreement on which books are and are not "Deutero" or "Apocrypha.' For 1500 years, NO two denominations EVER agreed on this - on which books should be embraced or even for what if they are (and none cared, it was never an issue, because none of them particularly used them or cared about them).

Which is why many keep asking (but no one will answer) WHICH books? WHAT books, specifically, are we talking about when "apocrypha" is mention and which are we NOT talking about? AND if we do get an answer, no one agrees.


To the issue, it seems all agree that the festival Jesus celebrated does not come from ANY book. So I think we're done. This thread has ended. It can be closed (could have been a long time ago). There is total agreement, nope, the festival does not come from a book.... and a book accurately relating history doesn't mean it is ergo canonical Scripture. We're done with the issue here.



.

The Feast of Dedication is Hanukkah, which is recorded in Maccabees. Just as Purim is the Feast celebrated in Esther. So how can you say Jesus didn’t celebrate a holiday that comes from the history of the Maccabees? Just like Passover comes from the events in Exodus.

 

[Josiah]

The Feast of Dedication is Hanukkah, which is recorded in Maccabees. Just as Purim is the Feast celebrated in Esther. So how can you say Jesus didn’t celebrate a holiday that comes from the history of the Maccabees?

I didn't say that at all, obviously.

The EVENT happened..... one of the books of Maccabees conveys that event (as perhaps did others)... so the EVENT doesn't come from a book, the CELEBRATION doesn't come from a book, a book recorded it. Apples/oranges.

And this is entirely irrelevent to the issue of whether that book is thus canonical history. There are likely tens of thousands of books that accurately relate the history of man's landing on the moon (something to celebrate, as we all did last summer) but that doesn't mean that ergo every one of those books is thus the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God - the Rule/Canon for Christian teaching. Nor that the lunar landing comes from any of those books.




.

 

[NathanH83]

I didn't say that at all, obviously.

The EVENT happened..... one of the books of Maccabees conveys that event (as perhaps did others)... so the EVENT doesn't come from a book, the CELEBRATION doesn't come from a book, a book recorded it. Apples/oranges.

And this is entirely irrelevent to the issue of whether that book is thus canonical history. There are likely tens of thousands of books that accurately relate the history of man's landing on the moon (something to celebrate, as we all did last summer) but that doesn't mean that ergo every one of those books is thus the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God - the Rule/Canon for Christian teaching. Nor that the lunar landing comes from any of those books.




.

But whenever people say that the apocrypha doesn’t belong is because they say the New Testament never quotes from any of those books, in order to give them validity. But that’s not true. If Purim was mentioned in the New Testament, then that would give Esther validity. The holiday in Maccabees is mentioned, giving it validity.

Why don’t you want people reading about the holiday that Jesus celebrated?

 

[Andrew]

I didn't say that at all, obviously.

The EVENT happened..... one of the books of Maccabees conveys that event (as perhaps did others)... so the EVENT doesn't come from a book, the CELEBRATION doesn't come from a book, a book recorded it. Apples/oranges.

And this is entirely irrelevent to the issue of whether that book is thus canonical history. There are likely tens of thousands of books that accurately relate the history of man's landing on the moon (something to celebrate, as we all did last summer) but that doesn't mean that ergo every one of those books is thus the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God - the Rule/Canon for Christian teaching. Nor that the lunar landing comes from any of those books.




.

So what about the books in the OT that aren't quoted in the NT? They should probably be Apocrypha because there is no evidence that Jesus and his Apostles ever even read them.. i mean we can't take the Septuagints word for it, they added all kinds of silly books, and you can't say that Jesus and the apostles read the Masoretic because that canon didn't exist yet.
This is the logic you are using and doesn't make sense, the Septuagint was Holy canon and if Rabbis were not happy about it there would have been an outcry and those books would have been declared heretical looooong before Jesus came to be... There is no pre Christ outrage over the Septuagint, the Jewish community obviously accepted the ENTIRE translation of their sacred Holy Books.
Btw why would protestants encourage scripture that bears false witness and is uninspired, they are either real and inspired or myths with half truths (which is a LIE) and should NOT be encouraged..

A letter from Clement of Rome in 90 AD just decades after Paul's letters to the same church, the biggest church at the time (NOT the RCC)

 

[Andrew]

Note: Olophernes is from the Septuagint as well

 

[Albion]

So what about the books in the OT that aren't quoted in the NT? They should probably be Apocrypha because there is no evidence that Jesus and his Apostles ever even read them..

No matter which book is being considered, its validity is not established merely because it mentions some person or event from previous history. Conversely, no book is rendered uninspired merely because there is no explicit mention of it by Christ AS recorded in a book of the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

But whenever people say that the apocrypha doesn’t belong is because they say the New Testament never quotes from any of those books, in order to give them validity.

I have no idea who these "people" are but as you know, I'm not one of "them". I never said that; the post you replied to didn't say that.

True, no Deutero book is ever quoted from in the NT (including this case) but I don't know what that has to do with anything...

Why don’t you want people reading about the holiday that Jesus celebrated?

Please quote me where I said ANYTHING about ANYONE not reading ANYTHING? In fact, I have posted to you that Lutherans ARE invited to read some books that some call apocrypha... and as I noted, my parish studied "them" as our Sunday Adult Class for some months, my Lutheran denomination publishes a very fine study edition of them, and as also in Anglican churches, Lutheran lectionaries often included readings from "them."

It has been repeatedly noted in these threads that "THEY" prohibit reading "these" but I've asked who are these mysterious "they" but got no response; I've asked WHICH specifically of the over 10,000 denominations officially forbids reading ANY book but got no response.

And what, pray tell, does that have do to with a book that contains accurate history THUS being the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule/Canon for Christian teaching?????



.