Did the Catholics make up the book of 1 Maccabees out of their imagination?

[NathanH83]

After all, the New Testament never mentions anything in the apocrypha. So the Catholics must have made it up.

 

[NewCreation435]

Along with a number of other things like purgatory and indulgences and other nonsense

 

[Andrew]

Along with a number of other things like purgatory and indulgences and other nonsense

You forgot the feast of dedication jsimms435.. since Jesus was obviously a Catholic perhaps it wasn't all nonsense

 

[Josiah]

Absurd.



.

 

[Andrew]

Absurd? anything specific here? Quote what has been said here that's so 'absurd' and please explain why you believe it as such

 

[JRT]

Several entire books in the canon are fictions. Well, a better term is they are "truth stories" not "true stories", like an extended parable. Those three are the Books of Job, of Jonah and of Ruth. There are fictional elements in other books as well.

 

[NathanH83]

Absurd.



.

Yup. It’s all absurd, because it’s all fiction

 

[atpollard]

Several entire books in the canon are fictions. Well, a better term is they are "truth stories" not "true stories", like an extended parable. Those three are the Books of Job, of Jonah and of Ruth. There are fictional elements in other books as well.

... by ”fictional elements” you mean things like those ’ridiculous’ miracles. Blind men being healed and dead men coming back to life, come on now, who really believes in fairy tales like that? Jesus was gave them the “proof of Jonah” in exactly the same way ... both stories are a pleasant fiction for teaching little children.

Is that what you really meant?
Because I could not disagree any stronger than I do.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV]​

 

[atpollard]

After all, the New Testament never mentions anything in the apocrypha. So the Catholics must have made it up.

The Catholics are simply guilty of pretending that a Jewish history book (1 Maccabees even states in it that it was not written by a prophet of God) is part of the Holy Scripture that Jesus defined as beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles ...

• "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” [Matthew 23:34-36 NASB]
• "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering." [Luke 11:47-52 NASB]

 

[Josiah]

After all, the New Testament never mentions anything in the apocrypha.

So? Do you have a point (with these ENDLESS threads you and another keep starting on deuterocanonical books?

Nothing in the Bible mentions Japan or Henry Ford or Adolf Hitler or atomic bombs .... what, pray tell, does that have to do with what books are the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice?

Just because a sermon may mention Adolf Hitler does not mean that ERGO Hitler was the Voice of God or that his speeches are thus the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice, it only means he is mentioned. You seem to make AMAZING and incredible leaps. Read your morning newspaper... it will mention some realities.... doesn't mean it ergo must be in every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.

So the Catholics must have made it up.

Your "logic" often amazes me....

I find it more likely that some Jew wrote it but of course no one knows the author of that book.

CH has largely been void of the absurd, ignorant ANTI-CATHOLICISM that invests most sites like this.




.

 

[NathanH83]

So? Do you have a point (with these ENDLESS threads you and another keep starting on deuterocanonical books?

Nothing in the Bible mentions Japan or Henry Ford or Adolf Hitler or atomic bombs .... what, pray tell, does that have to do with what books are the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice?

Just because a sermon may mention Adolf Hitler does not mean that ERGO Hitler was the Voice of God or that his speeches are thus the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice, it only means he is mentioned. You seem to make AMAZING and incredible leaps. Read your morning newspaper... it will mention some realities.... doesn't mean it ergo must be in every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.






Your "logic" often amazes me....

I find it more likely that some Jew wrote it but of course no one knows the author of that book.

CH has largely been void of the absurd, ignorant ANTI-CATHOLICISM that invests most sites like this.




.

It’s probably best to leave that Catholic-invented, fan-fiction out of the Bible. Because zero Christians in the early church accepted those books as scripture. Not even one of them!

 

[Andrew]

The Catholics are simply guilty of pretending that a Jewish history book (1 Maccabees even states in it that it was not written by a prophet of God) is part of the Holy Scripture that Jesus defined as beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles ...

• "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” [Matthew 23:34-36 NASB]
• "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering." [Luke 11:47-52 NASB]

So Zechariah was the last apostle?

 

[Josiah]

It’s probably best to leave that Catholic-invented, fan-fiction out of the Bible. Because zero Christians in the early church accepted those books as scripture. Not even one of them!

Let's pretend that you can find two Catholics who quoted 1 Maccabees.... even called it "scripture" (the word ONLY means something written down, this post is "scripture" the word does not necessarily mean anything more than that). Okay. I can likely find 10 million who think the Book of Mormon is not only Scripture but is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. By the way, you can also find examples of Christians in the early church who thought Mary could fly... does mean ERGO "The Church" declared that or that God declared that. It means some individual Christians held to that. Nothing more. You keep making enormous, baseless, incredible (and often wrong) leaps... your whole point depends on them. In all these endless threads started on this.


But ONE of your many, countless errors is your ASSUMPTION that if you can find a few individual people who believe something, ERGO it is the authoritative, definitive, binding decision of THE CHURCH and GOD.... Nope. Just because some Christians used the Didachi or the Revelation of Peter or the Epistle to the Leodiceans does NOT mean ERGO the whole church catholic in some authoritative, decisive, binding action declared such to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans: some individual person quoting or using something (as I have your post) does not equal God or "The Church" making an authoritative, official, declaration and it's certainly not GOD doing so. Your whole premise is based on an absurd assumption on your part.

You make a similar fundamentally wrong ASSUMPTION when you note what books were in some lectionaries.... lectionaries are just readings that may be included in the Mass, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what is or is not considered to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. Many ancient lectionaries did NOT include readings from the Revelation of John but generally those churches DID accept that book. And to this day, many Anglican lectionaries include readings from books that the Anglican Church has officially declared are NOT canonical. Your assumption that endorsing a lectionary is the same as the whole church catholic authoritatively, officially declaring what is and is not canonical is just wrong.


Yes... before 90 AD, the Jews USED lots of books (indeed, they STILL do) - doesn't mean JUDAISM before that did or decided anything in this regard. Yes, in the first 300 years or so of Christianity, Christians USED lots of books and writings, etc... LOTS. Doesn't mean THE CHURCH or GOD did or decided anything in this regard, it just means some Christians used some stuff. Christians STILL use books - millions of them - even video clips and sound bites - doesn't mean ERGO God or the whole church catholic has made some authoritative, official, binding declaration as to what is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated, canonical words of God. Get real. Stop the incredible, absurd assumptions and enormous, baseless leaps.




.

 

[atpollard]

So Zechariah was the last apostle?

You are incredibly sloppy with words.
Please define “Apostle” as you mean the term, but the Biblical answer is “no”.

The technical meaning of “apostle” is “one sent” and in the New Testament the Apostles were chosen by Christ to testify to His earthly teaching and the fact of His resurrection. Zechariah (killed at the end of 2 Chronicles) was not a New Testament Apostle. Zechariah WAS the last prophet sent by God to speak to the covenant nation prior to the birth of the Messiah according to Jesus ... but what does Jesus know compared to our inferences from the letters of the Early Church Fathers of the next few centuries after Christ?

John the Baptist was the first of the Prophets under the Messianic Age with Jesus selection of his first Apostles recorded in the gospels and the book of Acts. Most of the books in the Apocrypha appear to have been written after Zechariah and before John the Baptist ... making them useful, but not “God breathed” ... but THIS topic is specifically about 1 Maccabees which was DEFINITELY written after Zechariah and before John the Baptist and even states that it was not written by a Prophet of God.

 

[NathanH83]

Let's pretend that you can find two Catholics who quoted 1 Maccabees.... even called it "scripture" (the word ONLY means something written down, this post is "scripture" the word does not necessarily mean anything more than that). Okay. I can likely find 10 million who think the Book of Mormon is not only Scripture but is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. By the way, you can also find examples of Christians in the early church who thought Mary could fly... does mean ERGO "The Church" declared that or that God declared that. It means some individual Christians held to that. Nothing more. You keep making enormous, baseless, incredible (and often wrong) leaps... your whole point depends on them. In all these endless threads started on this.


But ONE of your many, countless errors is your ASSUMPTION that if you can find a few individual people who believe something, ERGO it is the authoritative, definitive, binding decision of THE CHURCH and GOD.... Nope. Just because some Christians used the Didachi or the Revelation of Peter or the Epistle to the Leodiceans does NOT mean ERGO the whole church catholic in some authoritative, decisive, binding action declared such to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans: some individual person quoting or using something (as I have your post) does not equal God or "The Church" making an authoritative, official, declaration and it's certainly not GOD doing so. Your whole premise is based on an absurd assumption on your part.

You make a similar fundamentally wrong ASSUMPTION when you note what books were in some lectionaries.... lectionaries are just readings that may be included in the Mass, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what is or is not considered to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. Many ancient lectionaries did NOT include readings from the Revelation of John but generally those churches DID accept that book. And to this day, many Anglican lectionaries include readings from books that the Anglican Church has officially declared are NOT canonical. Your assumption that endorsing a lectionary is the same as the whole church catholic authoritatively, officially declaring what is and is not canonical is just wrong.


Yes... before 90 AD, the Jews USED lots of books (indeed, they STILL do) - doesn't mean JUDAISM before that did or decided anything in this regard. Yes, in the first 300 years or so of Christianity, Christians USED lots of books and writings, etc... LOTS. Doesn't mean THE CHURCH or GOD did or decided anything in this regard, it just means some Christians used some stuff. Christians STILL use books - millions of them - even video clips and sound bites - doesn't mean ERGO God or the whole church catholic has made some authoritative, official, binding declaration as to what is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated, canonical words of God. Get real. Stop the incredible, absurd assumptions and enormous, baseless leaps.




.

Ergo?

 

[Andrew]

You are incredibly sloppy with words.
Please define “Apostle” as you mean the term, but the Biblical answer is “no”.

The technical meaning of “apostle” is “one sent” and in the New Testament the Apostles were chosen by Christ to testify to His earthly teaching and the fact of His resurrection. Zechariah (killed at the end of 2 Chronicles) was not a New Testament Apostle. Zechariah WAS the last prophet sent by God to speak to the covenant nation prior to the birth of the Messiah according to Jesus ... but what does Jesus know compared to our inferences from the letters of the Early Church Fathers of the next few centuries after Christ?

John the Baptist was the first of the Prophets under the Messianic Age with Jesus selection of his first Apostles recorded in the gospels and the book of Acts. Most of the books in the Apocrypha appear to have been written after Zechariah and before John the Baptist ... making them useful, but not “God breathed” ... but THIS topic is specifically about 1 Maccabees which was DEFINITELY written after Zechariah and before John the Baptist and even states that it was not written by a Prophet of God.

So what if a story such as Maccabees contained a miracle from God that sparked a Holiday that even Jesus celebrated?
Still not divinely inspired?
Why? Because protestants said so? Obviously the Catholics couldn't have added Maccabees, Jews did BEFORE Christ..
Second Canon is still Canon, I have three Catholic bibles leftover from my grandma and mother, they all agree that the so called "Apocrypha" books contained were divine and they give the same insight as to how and why it was dropped after the fact but are still considered canon or else it would not be included in the HOLY BIBLE as it were in KJV 1611.. right there dead smack in between the old and new testament..

 

[Josiah]

ANDREW -

So what if a story such as Maccabees contained a miracle from God that sparked a Holiday that even Jesus celebrated? Still not divinely inspired?

Not necessarily..... Friend, there may be over one MILLION books that accurately record World War II. The reality that they accurately record an event does not mean that THEREFORE all those books must be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense with say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

Why? Because protestants said so?

No. But equally not because you and Nathan say so.

Obviously the Catholics couldn't have added Maccabees, Jews did BEFORE Christ..

You've not even attempted to substantiate this claim you keep making for singular books in thread after thread after thread. Here is the REALITY you keep evading: Judaism did nothing - NOTHING - N.O.T.H.I.N.G - nothing whatsoever in this regard until 90 AD (AFTER probably all the Apostles had did), the first (and only) time Judaism did ANYTHING in regard to some authoritative, decisive declaration as to what is canonical was at their Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. And there's no 1 Maccabees in the books the Jews put into the canon. Nor Judith. Nor any of the books you keep talking about. They aren't there. The only time Judaism did ANYTHING in this regard, they did NOT put it in. Now, did SOME Jews USED some books other than those Judaism put in? SURE! They STILL use other books -thousands of them - but that does not mean that ergo the Council of Jamnia is rejected by Judism and they indeed have several thousand books in their canon. Come on, Andrew. Come on!

I have three Catholic bibles leftover from my grandma and mother, they all agree that the so called "Apocrypha" books contained were divine

1. The Catholic collection is UNIQUE. You don't agree with it. Nathan doesn't agree with it. The Greek Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Russian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Syrian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Egyptian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Eithiopian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Anglican Church doesn't agree with it. The Presbyterian Church doesn't agree with it. Luther didn't agree with it. Calvin didn't agree with it. Wesley didn't agree with it. ONE agrees with it - and that only since it's own meeting at Trent in the 16th Century - itself.

2. Yes, you could make a case that Catholicism INTERPRETS the Council of Trent as IMPLYING that all the books that singular, individual denomination embraced in the 16th Century are EQUALLY canonical. Trent actually nowhere says that but yes, that has become the 'spin' the RCC gives. But this was for ONE SINGLE individual denomination - and that was in the 16th Century - and NO OTHER agrees with it in this regard. he Greek Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Russian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Syrian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Egyptian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Eithiopian Orthodox Church doesn't agree with it. The Anglican Church doesn't agree with it. The Presbyterian Church doesn't agree with it. Luther didn't agree with it. Calvin didn't agree with it. Wesley didn't agree with it. ONE agrees with it - and that only since it's own meeting at Trent in the 16th Century - itself.





.

 

[hedrick]

The reason it's absurd is that 1 Maccabees was written before the Catholic Church existed. You can argue whether it should be accepted into the canon. You can argue how accurate the history is. But it surely wasn't made up by the Catholic church, and the historians I'm aware of believe the events are more or less historical, though you may or may not agree with the attitude towards them shown by the author(s).

 

[atpollard]

So what if a story such as Maccabees contained a miracle from God that sparked a Holiday that even Jesus celebrated?

Please provide evidence that Jesus celebrated a holiday sparked by a miracle in Maccabees.
What Gospel verses are you referring to?

(Then I can answer your question based on the facts rather than opinions.)

However, I suspect that God never commanded the celebration of the holiday in remembrance ... like God commanded Passover. So your analogy might be like claiming ... the fact that the Pope attends Christmas Mass proves that “The Little Drummer Boy” must be scripture. (I will wait to read the scripture you present before giving a final answer.)

 

[NathanH83]

The reason it's absurd is that 1 Maccabees was written before the Catholic Church existed. You can argue whether it should be accepted into the canon. You can argue how accurate the history is. But it surely wasn't made up by the Catholic church, and the historians I'm aware of believe the events are more or less historical, though you may or may not agree with the attitude towards them shown by the author(s).

Catholics made it up. That’s why we should avoid reading it.