Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[pinacled]

Unrelated.

The issue here is not whether some DOCTRINE in taught in the Bible, but whether a BOOK is referenced. If I claimed that the book "Cat in the Hat" is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew, obviously I'd need to show where "Cat in the Hat" is at least mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. Now, if I was asked if the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is mentioned there, that's a whole other enchilada.... I'd need to show where Jesus is labeled or described as divine.


If one reads Hebrews, you will not find First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees referenced or mentioned. Just reality. Sorry if that offends.




.

I'm of the opinion that sir nathan denys the resurrection.

 

[NathanH83]

I'm of the opinion that sir nathan denys the resurrection.

Denies the resurrection????
What??
I believe the New Testament.
What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[pinacled]

Denies the resurrection????
What??
I believe the New Testament.
What on Earth are you talking about?

Explain what a "better resurrection" means.

Do this and I will show why you and Andrew's attempt at distraction is a loyalty doomed to failure.

 

[pinacled]

Yochanon ch5

Do you deny that a resurrection has judgement involved?

 

[NathanH83]

Explain what a "better resurrection" means.

Do this and I will show why you and Andrew's attempt at distraction is a loyalty doomed to failure.

Why is it such a crime to want to use the Bible used by the early church?

 

[pinacled]

Why is it such a crime to want to use the Bible used by the early church?

Ask for a sword first youngin

 

[Andrew]

Ask for a sword first youngin

Another cryptic statement

 

[NathanH83]

Another cryptic statement

Right. I have no clue what he’s even talking about.

 

[Andrew]

Explain what a "better resurrection" means.

Do this and I will show why you and Andrew's attempt at distraction is a loyalty doomed to failure.

All will be resurrected, a "better one" means eternity in Heaven, the standard resurrection is eternity in the lake of fire

 

[Josiah]

1. Hebrews uses many examples from the Bible in this sermon on FAITH, the last lines in 11:35 is speaking directly of 2 Maccabees 7

2. Unlike secular literature/history, 2 Maccabees is more than just a series of actual past events (The entire Bible is based on actual past events also remember?) but is entirely 100% in pursuit of cleansing GODS house for GODS people. The book is all about re-dedicating the house of GOD!

3. Judah Maccabee was a STRONG believer in the RESURRECTION AND REDEEMER TO COME WHO WILL RAISE THE DEAD, Judah like PAUL found HOPE and COMFORT in the fact that dead believers will be Resurrected into everlasting life!

I.e. (note this is before Christ, the sacrifice had not yet come, keep in mind that this was simply a "pious thought"/wishful thinking/hopes)

2 Maccabees 12:44

"..he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought."

Concordance to Paul

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words"
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

4. Jews painstakingly transcribed the Maccabean scrolls throughout the synagogues, this is known because after Jamnia, Aquilas replaced them with a new greek Septuagint with the new canon

5. Jesus didnt observe pagan holidays, a Jewish HOLY DAY such as the feast of dedication could not be based on a fictional story, if Judah Maccabee was real then his testament IS real, if the testament is real then God answered the prayers of the Jews and Judah really was called by God to bring his vengeance and wrath upon the pagans and take back His Temple, if it was all in his head well I guess prayers being answered on a grand scale was just coincidence and God really wasn't all that concerned about his Temple being cluttered with pagan idols and Jews being stripped of their religion and forced into pagan idolatry

I agree.... The Book of Hebrews NEVER references First, Second, Third and/or Fourth Maccabees.




.

 

[Josiah]

It doesn’t have to be mentioned by name in order for it to be referenced.

That IS the essential, absolutely required aspect of a book REFERENCE.


Now, as noted, it IS possible for multiple books to have something in common, perhaps noting the same event. I wouldn't be surprised if there are not MILLIONS of books that mention World War Two. But it's beyond silly to claim that every one of them is REFERENCING all the others in them.

Maccabees is not just regular history, like any other history book. This is the history of Israel

I suspect there are millions of books that contain history of the Holy Lands. Does that mean every one of these BOOKS is specifically REFERENCED n all the rest? If one (of millions of books) mentions Jesus, say written in 801 in Latin.... and another (of millions) mentions Jesus., way written in 1994 in English... how that prove that the second one contains a book reference to the first? Is the only way the 1994 book could know about Jesus is from that 801 book? And if the later references the first, it would (at the very min.) require mentioning the book. And since both contain the word "Jesus" does this prove both are the inerrant, canonical, divinely inspired words of God and part the Bible? Is every book that mentions something also mentioned in another book ergo Scripture?

 

[NathanH83]

That IS the essential, absolutely required aspect of a book REFERENCE.


Now, as noted, it IS possible for multiple books to have something in common, perhaps noting the same event. I wouldn't be surprised if there are not MILLIONS of books that mention World War Two. But it's beyond silly to claim that every one of them is REFERENCING all the others in them.






I suspect there are millions of books that contain history of the Holy Lands. Does that mean every one of these BOOKS is specifically REFERENCED n all the rest? If one (of millions of books) mentions Jesus, say written in 801 in Latin.... and another (of millions) mentions Jesus., way written in 1994 in English... how that prove that the second one contains a book reference to the first? Is the only way the 1994 book could know about Jesus is from that 801 book? And if the later references the first, it would (at the very min.) require mentioning the book. And since both contain the word "Jesus" does this prove both are the inerrant, canonical, divinely inspired words of God and part the Bible? Is every book that mentions something also mentioned in another book ergo Scripture?

Did you even read what I said? I said that Hebrews 11:34 references the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego without actually mentioning the book of Daniel by name. But you just ignored what I said and insist that a book’s title must be mentioned in order for it to be referenced.

This is very disrespectful in your part, and shows that you’re not listening to plain reason or logic.

 

[Josiah]

Why is it such a crime to want to use the Bible used by the early church?

1. First, you'd need to show that every Christian from 33AD to 313 AD regarded every one of the books YOU use as the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God - as their BIBLE. Every book you use. Every Christian for those nearly300 years. In that way. Good luck.


2. Today, Christians read MILLIONS of books.... and use MILLIONS of books. It is quite common for preachers to quote from books, newspapers, magazines, websites, even books containing sermon illustrations and stories. This has ALWAYS been the case. So, according to you, if you can find 4 pastors quoting from Left Behind, this proves that series and the movies must be accepted by every Christian as the inerrant, canonical, insceripturated words of God. I just find that an amazing, incredible assumption on your part.... one you obviously haven't thought through;


3. Okay, so your rubric is if Christians read or use or quote from a book, ERGO it is the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God and Scripture. Well, the ECF read and used and quoted from lots of books. These include The Epistle of Barnabas (which some of the Fathers specifically call "Scripture"), the Shepherd of Hermas (ditto, some specifally label this book as "SCRIPTURE") the Didache (used MORE than several books in your Bible tome), the Gospel of Matthew (quoted directly by several ECF). They also reference BY NAME the following: "The Gospel of Peter" "The Gospel of Thomas" "Acts of Andrew" Yes, there's some evidence they occasionally also noted one of the 4 Maccabee books but less so than these. So, why accept one or more of the Maccabee books but not all these? Is it simply whether the book can be dated to before or after 1 AD (if only BEFOFE, then you must reject all the NT). If we should "use" the ssme books early Christians did, then why aren't you arguing for the Gospel of Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James and the Didache? They were used by early Christians...

I said that Hebrews 11:34 references the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego without actually mentioning the book of Daniel

1. Perhaps you are unaware that the Book of Daniel is a different book than is First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees.

2. Hebrews 11:34 never even so much as mentions the Book of Daniel, much less specifically reference that book. The word "Daniel" doesn't even appear in the entirely of the Book of Hebrews.... as a person or as a book. That Book (which isn't any of the books with Maccabees in its moniker) isn't referenced, the word doens't even appear in any way or form. No, the book is not referenced.

3. Friend, it is IMPOSSIBLE to give a book reference without so much as even mentioning a single word from the book title. Impossible. And simply noting the same information in no way whatsoever is a book reference or indicates that the information came exclusively (or at all) from that book;. Again, you read in your 10th Grade history book that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. And your son reads in his 10th grade History book the same thing. Does that mandate (or even suggest) the second book MUST have learned about that from your 10th grade history book? Come on.... your whole apologetic is beyond incredible.




.



.

 

[NathanH83]

1. First, you'd need to show that every Christian from 33AD to 313 AD regarded every one of the books YOU use as the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God - as their BIBLE. Every book you use. Every Christian for those nearly300 years. In that way. Good luck.


2. Today, Christians read MILLIONS of books.... and use MILLIONS of books. It is quite common for preachers to quote from books, newspapers, magazines, websites, even books containing sermon illustrations and stories. This has ALWAYS been the case. So, according to you, if you can find 4 pastors quoting from Left Behind, this proves that series and the movies must be accepted by every Christian as the inerrant, canonical, insceripturated words of God. I just find that an amazing, incredible assumption on your part.... one you obviously haven't thought through;


3. Okay, so your rubric is if Christians read or use or quote from a book, ERGO it is the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God and Scripture. Well, the ECF read and used and quoted from lots of books. These include The Epistle of Barnabas (which some of the Fathers specifically call "Scripture"), the Shepherd of Hermas (ditto, some specifally label this book as "SCRIPTURE") the Didache (used MORE than several books in your Bible tome), the Gospel of Matthew (quoted directly by several ECF). They also reference BY NAME the following: "The Gospel of Peter" "The Gospel of Thomas" "Acts of Andrew" Yes, there's some evidence they occasionally also noted one of the 4 Maccabee books but less so than these. So, why accept one or more of the Maccabee books but not all these? Is it simply whether the book can be dated to before or after 1 AD (if only BEFOFE, then you must reject all the NT). If we should "use" the ssme books early Christians did, then why aren't you arguing for the Gospel of Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James and the Didache? They were used by early Christians...






1. Perhaps you are unaware that the Book of Daniel is a different book than is First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees.

2. Hebrews 11:34 never even so much as mentions the Book of Daniel, much less specifically reference that book. The word "Daniel" doesn't even appear in the entirely of the Book of Hebrews.... as a person or as a book. That Book (which isn't any of the books with Maccabees in its moniker) isn't referenced, the word doens't even appear in any way or form. No, the book is not referenced.

3. Friend, it is IMPOSSIBLE to give a book reference without so much as even mentioning a single word from the book title. Impossible. And simply noting the same information in no way whatsoever is a book reference or indicates that the information came exclusively (or at all) from that book;. Again, you read in your 10th Grade history book that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. And your son reads in his 10th grade History book the same thing. Does that mandate (or even suggest) the second book MUST have learned about that from your 10th grade history book? Come on.... your whole apologetic is beyond incredible.




.



.

You haven’t explained who the men are who by faith quenched the flames of fire. If not the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, then who? If it’s not referencing Daniel, then what?

You see, you’re not making any sense.

 

[Josiah]

You haven’t explained who the men are who by faith quenched the flames of fire. If not the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, then who? If it’s not referencing Daniel, then what?

Constant evasion and derailing.....

Brother, you haven't shown how Hebrews gives a book reference to First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees. I can't find even so much as the word "Maccabees" or "first" or "second" or "third" or "forth" ANYWHERE in Hebrews, in any context, for anything whatsoever.

You seem to confuse the Book of Daniel with the various books of Maccabees. They aren't the same books, my brother.

You simply refuse to prove that if two books mention the same thing, ERGO one book is giving a book reference to the other. I'll ask again: Perhaps there was a book written in 1944 that mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor. Another written in 1950 that also mentions that attack. Prove to me that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that the second book MUST give a book reference to the first.. that the author of the second MUST have gotten his info exclusively from the the one from 1944, and that ergo both of them are THE inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus Scripture and part of the Bible. You are making yet another HUGE, absolutely incredible leap.... altogether absurd.... for purposes you won't convey.... something perhaps you're copying/pasting from some website and just not THINKING about.


Okay, so your rubric is if Christians read or use or quote from a book, ERGO it is the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God and Scripture and a part of our Bible. Well, early Christians read and used and quoted from lots of books. These include The Epistle of Barnabas (which some of the Fathers specifically call "Scripture"), the Shepherd of Hermas (ditto, some specifally label this book as "SCRIPTURE") the Didache (used MORE than several books in your Bible tome), the Gospel of Matthew (quoted directly by several ECF). They also reference BY NAME the following: "The Gospel of Peter" "The Gospel of Thomas" "Acts of Andrew" Yes, there's some evidence they occasionally also noted one of the 4 Maccabee books but less so than these. So, why accept one or more of the Maccabee books but not all these? Is it simply whether the book can be dated to before or after 1 AD (if only BEFOFE, then you must reject all the NT). If we should "use" the ssme books early Christians did, then why aren't you arguing for the Gospel of Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James and the Didache? They were used by early Christians...




.

 

[Andrew]

Constant evasion and derailing.....

Brother, you haven't shown how Hebrews gives a book reference to First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees. I can't find even so much as the word "Maccabees" or "first" or "second" or "third" or "forth" ANYWHERE in Hebrews, in any context, for anything whatsoever.

You seem to confuse the Book of Daniel with the various books of Maccabees. They aren't the same books, my brother.

You simply refuse to prove that if two books mention the same thing, ERGO one book is giving a book reference to the other. I'll ask again: Perhaps there was a book written in 1944 that mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor. Another written in 1950 that also mentions that attack. Prove to me that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that the second book MUST give a book reference to the first.. that the author of the second MUST have gotten his info exclusively from the the one from 1944, and that ergo both of them are THE inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus Scripture and part of the Bible. You are making yet another HUGE, absolutely incredible leap.... altogether absurd.... for purposes you won't convey.... something perhaps you're copying/pasting from some website and just not THINKING about.


Okay, so your rubric is if Christians read or use or quote from a book, ERGO it is the inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God and Scripture and a part of our Bible. Well, early Christians read and used and quoted from lots of books. These include The Epistle of Barnabas (which some of the Fathers specifically call "Scripture"), the Shepherd of Hermas (ditto, some specifally label this book as "SCRIPTURE") the Didache (used MORE than several books in your Bible tome), the Gospel of Matthew (quoted directly by several ECF). They also reference BY NAME the following: "The Gospel of Peter" "The Gospel of Thomas" "Acts of Andrew" Yes, there's some evidence they occasionally also noted one of the 4 Maccabee books but less so than these. So, why accept one or more of the Maccabee books but not all these? Is it simply whether the book can be dated to before or after 1 AD (if only BEFOFE, then you must reject all the NT). If we should "use" the ssme books early Christians did, then why aren't you arguing for the Gospel of Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James and the Didache? They were used by early Christians...




.

Timothy was said to have read the scriptures since childhood, his parents were Greek, put two and two together, Maccabees is scripture according to to this information

 

[Josiah]

Timothy was said to have read the scriptures since childhood, his parents were Greek, put two and two together, Maccabees is scripture according to to this information

So, your required assignment now is ...

1. Prove that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees was/were read by Timothy. Give us the list of books Timothy read in childhood.

2. Prove that Timothy (or perhaps his parents) regarded First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and thus Scripture, so Timothy wasn't just reading a reliable, helpful, inspirational, very important book BUT, specifically, The literal words from God Himself - inerrant, canoncial SCRIPTURE.

Good luck.



.

 

[Andrew]

So, your required assignment now is ...

1. Prove that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees was/were read by Timothy. Give us the list of books Timothy read in childhood.

2. Prove that Timothy (or perhaps his parents) regarded First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and thus Scripture, so Timothy wasn't just reading a reliable, helpful, inspirational, very important book BUT, specifically, The literal words from God Himself - inerrant, canoncial SCRIPTURE.

Good luck.



.

He read the Greek translations of SCRIPTURE which included Maccabees.

 

[Andrew]

Paul’s second letter to Timothy:

“From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17)

What Scriptures would Timothy have known from childhood? Surely it was the Septuagint. Timothy was from the Roman colony of Lystra, situated in Greek-speaking Galatia. Not only that, but his father was a Greek Gentile.

That the Septuagint was the Bible used by the Jews in Galatia is confirmed by the fact that Paul quotes from the Septuagint when he writes to the Galatians. For example, in Galatians 3:13 he writes

“For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’”

That is what the Septuagint says in Deuteronomy 21:23.
However, the Masoretic Text in Deuteronomy 21:23 merely says,

“He that is hanged is accursed of God.”

No mention is made of a tree. So when Paul told Timothy that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” he was actually speaking about the Septuagint—the only Scriptures Timothy knew.

 

[NathanH83]

So, your required assignment now is ...

1. Prove that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees was/were read by Timothy. Give us the list of books Timothy read in childhood.

2. Prove that Timothy (or perhaps his parents) regarded First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and thus Scripture, so Timothy wasn't just reading a reliable, helpful, inspirational, very important book BUT, specifically, The literal words from God Himself - inerrant, canoncial SCRIPTURE.

Good luck.



.

Hebrews 11:35 says that these men were:

1. Tortured.
2. Given a chance to be delivered.
3. Refused to be delivered.
4. Hoped for a better resurrection.

The story in 2 Maccabees 7 says that they were:

1. Tortured by king Antiochus.
2. Were given a chance to be delivered by eating pork.
3. Refused to be delivered in honor of God’s law.
4. Specifically said that they hoped that the King of the World will raise them up some day.

The story in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 fits on all 4 points. There’s nothing else in the entire Old Testament that fits so perfectly. If you can’t, or won’t make that obvious connection, then you’re being what the Bible calls “willfully ignorant.”