Does Daniel chapters 8 and 11 prophesy about events that took place in Maccabees?

[NathanH83]

True,
They are not mentioned by those names when cast into the 7fold fired kiln.
And there is a principle lesson in why their hebrew names are not mentioned in this very specific account.
Something of which a Torah observant hebrew would understand.

For the author of maccabees to make such a critical error shows that it is written by a gentile.
That very much lacks integrity.

Now, hold on a second. You said that you HADN’T HEARD of these names. Don’t try to back out of this. Just admit that you made a mistake.

 

[pinacled]

Now, hold on a second. You said that you HADN’T HEARD of these names. Don’t try to back out of this. Just admit that you made a mistake.

Context sir.

I suppose you couldn't find what I asked

 

[pinacled]

Context sir.

I suppose you couldn't find what I asked

Hebrews are very strict with accuracy.
The book of maccabees fails a fundamental premise.

 

[pinacled]

Now, hold on a second. You said that you HADN’T HEARD of these names. Don’t try to back out of this. Just admit that you made a mistake.

Apply the same measure of scrutiny to the book of maccabees as you have my words .

Blessings Always

 

[NathanH83]

Apply the same measure of scrutiny to the book of maccabees as you have my words .

Blessings Always

So what if Maccabees chooses to use their original names? Is this really your argument? It’s a pretty pathetic one. Got anything that makes sense?

 

[pinacled]

Now, hold on a second. You said that you HADN’T HEARD of these names. Don’t try to back out of this. Just admit that you made a mistake.

I said no such thing.

["Anyone recognize the first 3 names?
I dont]"

 

[NathanH83]

I said no such thing.

["Anyone recognize the first 3 names?
I dont]"

How can you not recognize them when THEY’RE WRITTEN IN DANIEL????

 

[pinacled]

So what if Maccabees chooses to use their original names? Is this really your argument? It’s a pretty pathetic one. Got anything that makes sense?

In the account of Daniel the 3 are called by their new names while tempered with a circumcision of the heart.

In maccabees this basic hebrew tenet is entirely glossed over when the author claims that their hebrew names were in the kiln.

Do you understand?

 

[NathanH83]

In the account of Daniel the 3 are called by their new names while tempered with a circumcision of the heart.

In maccabees this basis hebrew tenet is entirely glossed over when the author claims that their hebrew names were in the kiln.

Do you understand?

I understand that you’re making an incredibly nonsensical argument.

 

[pinacled]

I understand that you’re making an incredibly nonsensical argument.

Prove me wrong

 

[NathanH83]

Prove me wrong

Prove you wrong? What’s to prove? You’re not even making any sense to begin with. I can’t argue with nonsensical gibberish.
Maccabees mentions those 3 men by their original names. So what? Your argument is that you have no argument.

 

[Andrew]

I said no such thing.

["Anyone recognize the first 3 names?
I dont]"

"I haven't/I've never heard of these names" and "I don't recognize these names" are the same statement.

 

[NathanH83]

"I haven't/I've never heard of these names" and "I don't recognize these names" are the same statement.

Exactly. How can he not recognize them when Daniel mentions them? These are the lame arguments that people make against the Apocrypha.

 

[Josiah]

Exactly. How can he not recognize them when Daniel mentions them? These are the lame arguments that people make against the Apocrypha.

The Book of Daniel never mentions ANY of 4 different books some call Maccabees. And it would matter not unless you could prove Daniel was speaking of exactly the same 4 books AND said they were embrace by all believers as the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God. LOTS of books mention LOTS of books... it has amazingly little to do with either being canonical Scripture.


For reasons never disclosed, you seem to like at least some of the Maccabee books. Fine. I like hundreds of books.
You seem to hold that some of these Maccabee books contain accurate history. Fine. Millions of books do.
You seem to hold that some Jews and Christians read these books. Fine. They've read millions of books. Quoted from millions.

Here's what I don't understand. Why, pray tell, is it thus proven that those books with accurate history in them or read by Jews are ERGO affirmed by all as the inerrant, verbally inspired, authoritative, canonical, inscripturated words of God? I don't follow your line of thinking. AND, pray tell, exactly what critical dogma is taught solely in any of these 4 books that mandates all Christians for the past 2000 years must accept them as canonical so that this yet undisclosed dogma is therefore taught in Christianity? What dogma are you SO concerned taught in them but not taught in Christianity? What is our great loss in not accepting 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 Maccabees? You haven't said. AND why do you hold that if a book is not found in every tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover, ergo no one will read it? Have you seen the New York Times Best Seller list lately? Hint: not one of them is found in any tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover. You seem to have great zeal.... I've just never figured out why.




.



.

 

[Andrew]

The Book of Daniel never mentions ANY of 4 different books some call Maccabees. And it would matter not unless you could prove Daniel was speaking of exactly the same 4 books AND said they were embrace by all believers as the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God. LOTS of books mention LOTS of books... it has amazingly little to do with either being canonical Scripture.


For reasons never disclosed, you seem to like at least some of the Maccabee books. Fine. I like hundreds of books.
You seem to hold that some of these Maccabee books contain accurate history. Fine. Millions of books do.
You seem to hold that some Jews and Christians read these books. Fine. They've read millions of books. Quoted from millions.

Here's what I don't understand. Why, pray tell, is it thus proven that those books with accurate history in them or read by Jews are ERGO affirmed by all as the inerrant, verbally inspired, authoritative, canonical, inscripturated words of God? I don't follow your line of thinking. AND, pray tell, exactly what critical dogma is taught solely in any of these 4 books that mandates all Christians for the past 2000 years must accept them as canonical so that this yet undisclosed dogma is therefore taught in Christianity? What dogma are you SO concerned taught in them but not taught in Christianity? What is our great loss in not accepting 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 Maccabees? You haven't said. AND why do you hold that if a book is not found in every tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover, ergo no one will read it? Have you seen the New York Times Best Seller list lately? Hint: not one of them is found in any tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover. You seem to have great zeal.... I've just never figured out why.




.



.

2nd Samuel, 2nd Chronicles, 2nd Kings are additions to the first books, how many times does the OT say "this account is found in this book" and 'said book' is not even available to us.

 

[NathanH83]

The Book of Daniel never mentions ANY of 4 different books some call Maccabees. And it would matter not unless you could prove Daniel was speaking of exactly the same 4 books AND said they were embrace by all believers as the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God. LOTS of books mention LOTS of books... it has amazingly little to do with either being canonical Scripture.


For reasons never disclosed, you seem to like at least some of the Maccabee books. Fine. I like hundreds of books.
You seem to hold that some of these Maccabee books contain accurate history. Fine. Millions of books do.
You seem to hold that some Jews and Christians read these books. Fine. They've read millions of books. Quoted from millions.

Here's what I don't understand. Why, pray tell, is it thus proven that those books with accurate history in them or read by Jews are ERGO affirmed by all as the inerrant, verbally inspired, authoritative, canonical, inscripturated words of God? I don't follow your line of thinking. AND, pray tell, exactly what critical dogma is taught solely in any of these 4 books that mandates all Christians for the past 2000 years must accept them as canonical so that this yet undisclosed dogma is therefore taught in Christianity? What dogma are you SO concerned taught in them but not taught in Christianity? What is our great loss in not accepting 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 Maccabees? You haven't said. AND why do you hold that if a book is not found in every tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover, ergo no one will read it? Have you seen the New York Times Best Seller list lately? Hint: not one of them is found in any tome with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover. You seem to have great zeal.... I've just never figured out why.




.



.

You haven’t been paying attention to the conversation. Pinnacled said that he didn’t recognize the names of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Those are the names that I was saying Daniel mentions. Pinnacled was using that as an argument against Maccabees.

 

[Josiah]

those are the names that I was saying Daniel mentions. Pinnacled was using that as an argument against Maccabees.

Okay. So one of the 4 Books we call "Maccabees" contains some names. You seem to like those names. What I don't understand is what is proven because one of some books contain some names? Now many books in the world contain the name of Jesus? Does that prove each one of them ergo is the inerrant, normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God and therefore all Christians for 2000 years should accept it as Scripture and put it in all tomes with a cover that says "HOLY BIBLE?" What is your point? Obviously, you have great passion.... but for WHAT I've never been able to determine. What, pray tell, is found in any or all of the 4 books sometimes called "Maccabees"is so critical for all Christians to accept as canonical, what's in them that proves many Christians for 2000 years have been heretical to not accept these 4 books equal to say Romans or Genesis?

 

[NathanH83]

Okay. So one of the 4 Books we call "Maccabees" contains some names. You seem to like those names. What I don't understand is what is proven because one of some books contain some names? Now many books in the world contain the name of Jesus? Does that prove each one of them ergo is the inerrant, normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God and therefore all Christians for 2000 years should accept it as Scripture and put it in all tomes with a cover that says "HOLY BIBLE?" What is your point? Obviously, you have great passion.... but for WHAT I've never been able to determine. What, pray tell, is found in any or all of the 4 books sometimes called "Maccabees"is so critical for all Christians to accept as canonical, what's in them that proves many Christians for 2000 years have been heretical to not accept these 4 books equal to say Romans or Genesis?

You’re jumping in on a conversation that you weren’t paying attention to.

 

[Josiah]

You’re jumping in on a conversation that you weren’t paying attention to.

Perhaps. I just felt you might have a reason for the conversation....and countless ones very similar to this since you came to CH. Perhaps not.

Blessings, brother.



.

 

[Josiah]

...