Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[Josiah]

Origen when he called 2 Maccabees holy scripture?

Origen specifically and directly labeled The Epistle of Barnabas AND the Shepherd of Hermas as specifically "SCRIPTURE." He repeatedly used that word for those two books. So since you regard the views of Origen as definitive, why aren't you arguing for the inclusion of those two books into our Bible?




.

 

[NathanH83]

You are assuming to give precedence to atheist over the jews as something worthy of acknowledgement. That is a biased attack from my perspective.
Besides.
Why not simply ignore the claims from atheist that the pyramids were built on a certain date.
Instead why not consider the possibility that egyptian historians were fabricating such a hoax to discredit The God of Israel.

The video you produced is wrought with inaccuracies and claims without any source material as evidence.

And I'll close with something tango mentioned.
Opinions aren't facts.

If the timeline I presented is so obviously wrong, then why did the greatest of church historians defend it?
Eusebius agrees with my timeline, down to the exact same number of 650 years.

 

[NathanH83]

The claim is impossible and baseless... any objective, truthful person KNOWS (undeniably) that the Book of Hebrews doesn't contain the words "First" "Second" "Third" "Fourth" or "Maccabees." Those words don't appear, even once, in the entire book... not in Greek or in any language. So, obviously, undeniably, no Maccabees book is referenced in Hebrews. Clearly, undeniably, Hebrews does not contain a book reference to... well... ANY book.

Yes, it is very common for books containing history to note similar or same history. This does not prove that ergo any book is thus the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). This is obvious, this is undeniable.... otherwise, there would be MILLIONS of books in the Christian Bible.

A LOT of claims are made in this thread - all meaningless and wholly, completely unsubstantiated (and pointless).




.

You like to repeat yourself allot.
You like to repeat yourself allot.
You like to repeat yourself allot.

 

[Josiah]

You like to repeat yourself

You like to evade a lot.... Every point raised to you, you just ignore.


You indicated we should all accept 2 Maccabees as "Scripture" because you claim that Origen did...... okay... then a question is required... since the very same Origen specifically and directly labeled The Epistle of Barnabas and also the Shepherd of Hermas as "SCRIPTURE," why aren't you arguing for the inclusion of those two books into our Bible? Why just 2 Maccabees but NOT The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas?




.

 

[Origen]

You like to evade a lot.... Every point raised to you, you just ignore.

You indicated we should all accept 2 Maccabees as "Scripture" because you claim that Origen did...... okay... then a question is required... since the very same Origen specifically and directly labeled The Epistle of Barnabas and also the Shepherd of Hermas as "SCRIPTURE," why aren't you arguing for the inclusion of those two books into our Bible? Why just 2 Maccabees but NOT The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas?

Not only but something very important has been over looked in Hebrews 11 which has a direct impact upon this discussion. In Hebrews 11:37 the first half of that text reads:

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword."

There is no record of something like that happening in the Old or New Testaments nor the Apocrypha. However such an event is recorded in two other documents.

(1) Ascension of Isaiah - "And they seized Isaiah the son of Amoz and sawed him in half with a wood saw" (5:11).
(2) Lives of the Prophets - "Isaiah was from Jerusalem. He dies by Manasseh, having been sawn in two and was placed beneath the Oak of Rogel (near) the passage of the waters, which Hezekiah stopped, having diked them." (1:1)

Now applying the same methods that have been used in this thread to support 2 Maccabees, it follows that Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets are Scripture as well.

 

[NathanH83]

You like to evade a lot.... Every point raised to you, you just ignore.


You indicated we should all accept 2 Maccabees as "Scripture" because you claim that Origen did...... okay... then a question is required... since the very same Origen specifically and directly labeled The Epistle of Barnabas and also the Shepherd of Hermas as "SCRIPTURE," why aren't you arguing for the inclusion of those two books into our Bible? Why just 2 Maccabees but NOT The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas?




.

Origen never referred to them as scripture. Show the reference, why don’t you?

And the New Testament books that I accept are the ones declared to be scripture at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Those are the very same councils you look to in order to know which books belong in the New Testament. And those councils included 2 Maccabees in the Canon of scripture.

You’re contradicting yourself. You accept these councils’ decision on the New Testament, but reject their decision on the Old Testament.

 

[NathanH83]

Not only but something very important has been over looked in Hebrews 11 which has a direct impact upon this discussion. In Hebrews 11:37 the first half of that text reads:

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword."

There is no record of something like that happening in the Old or New Testaments nor the Apocrypha. However such an event is recorded in two other documents.

(1) Ascension of Isaiah - "And they seized Isaiah the son of Amoz and sawed him in half with a wood saw" (5:11).
(2) Lives of the Prophets - "Isaiah was from Jerusalem. He dies by Manasseh, having been sawn in two and was placed beneath the Oak of Rogel (near) the passage of the waters, which Hezekiah stopped, having diked them." (1:1)

Now applying the same methods that have been used in this thread to support 2 Maccabees, it follows that Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets are Scripture as well.

I was making the point that the Apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament, disproving the claim that they’re not.

I never made the claim that everything mentioned in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament.

The New Testament speaks of Jannes and Jambres, two names not found in the Old Testament. They were the two magicians who opposed Moses. But Exodus never mentions them by name.

Stephen says Moses was 40 when he left Egypt, and 80 when he returned to Egypt. This detail is not found in the book of Exodus or anywhere in the Old Testament.

Whatever the source is for this information, I don’t know. But one thing I do know, is that the King James has a marginal note in Hebrews 11:35, referencing 2 Maccabees 7. The King James in its original printing in 1611 included the book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocryphal section. 2 Maccabees has historically been included in the Bible for over a thousand years before the Reformation of the 1500’s. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared 2 Maccabees to be scripture as early as the 300’s AD.

And yet, Bibles today are.....MISSING IT?

That’s not right.
That’s just not right.

 

[Josiah]

Origen never referred to them as scripture.

Once again, you are just flat-out wrong.



Epistle of Barnabus:

Epistle of Barnabas - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

QUOTE: In the early church, the Epistle of Barnabas was read in churches and several of the Church Fathers accepted it as scripture including Clement of Alexandria and Origen.



The Shepherd of Hermes:

Shepherd of Hermas | Description, Summary, History, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Shepherd of Hermas, 2nd-century Christian writing that is one of the works representing the Apostolic Fathers (Greek Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries). It records five visions experienced by the author, Hermas, and was regarded as Scripture by certain early Christian...

www.britannica.com

QUOTE: "It was accepted as Scripture by Origen, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandra, Tertullian and other Church Fathers"



Your apologetic is that we must accept Second Maccabees because you claim Origen accepted it specifically as Scripture. Well.... he also accepted the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas specifically as Scripture... many other ECF did, as well. SO.... by your whole point, we must also accept The Epistle of Barnabus and Shepherd of Hermas. Why aren't you arguing for the inclusion of those books into our Bible? Since you insist 2 Maccabees must be regarded as Scripture because Origen said it was, then you must insist so are the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas.

But here too, your premise is absurd and your application of it TOTALLY arbitrary and inconsistent.




.







.

 

[Josiah]

the King James has a marginal note in Hebrews 11:35, referencing 2 Maccabees 7.

SOOO, Hebrews does not reference 2 Maccabees - you finally admit - it's a 17th Century translation in the marginal notes that does! There goes your entire argument (now that you finally admit the reality). Brother, there's an enormous difference between HEBREWS making a book reference and the editors of a 17th Century translation making a comment in a margin.


I think we can close this thread now.




.

 

[Andrew]

SOOO, Hebrews does not reference 2 Maccabees - you finally admit - it's a 17th Century translation in the marginal notes that does! There goes your entire argument (now that you finally admit the reality). Brother, there's an enormous difference between HEBREWS making a book reference and the editors of a 17th Century translation making a comment in a margin.


I think we can close this thread now.




.

He did not "admit" anything, a marginal note is just another point that BIBLE readers in times past had acknowledged this same fact

 

[Origen]

I was making the point that the Apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament, disproving the claim that they’re not.

I never made the claim that everything mentioned in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament.

The New Testament speaks of Jannes and Jambres, two names not found in the Old Testament. They were the two magicians who opposed Moses. But Exodus never mentions them by name.

Stephen says Moses was 40 when he left Egypt, and 80 when he returned to Egypt. This detail is not found in the book of Exodus or anywhere in the Old Testament.

Whatever the source is for this information, I don’t know. But one thing I do know, is that the King James has a marginal note in Hebrews 11:35, referencing 2 Maccabees 7. The King James in its original printing in 1611 included the book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocryphal section. 2 Maccabees has historically been included in the Bible for over a thousand years before the Reformation of the 1500’s. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared 2 Maccabees to be scripture as early as the 300’s AD.

And yet, Bibles today are.....MISSING IT?

That’s not right.
That’s just not right.

Your overall point is moot in regard to what I wrote. I said, now applying the same methods that have been used in this thread to support 2 Maccabees, it follows that Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets are Scripture as well.

However, your claims regarding 2 Maccabees, Jannes and Jambres, along with my examples from the Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets does support my earlier point that a New Testament author may quote\cite a source without accepting it as Scripture. Again, since that point is obviously valid, and taken with your examples, it follows even if it is a reference to 2 Maccabees that does not mean the author accepted it as Scripture.

Also, as I pointed out before, the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage did nothing to change that fact that those books were still being debated long after and still are today.

 

[Josiah]

He did not "admit" anything, a marginal note is just another point that BIBLE readers in times past had acknowledged this same fact

He claimed that HEBREWS contained this book reference.... then (finally.... at long last.... after much time) admitted it was some authors of study notes, writing in the margins, that mentioned this. NOT Hebrews. NOT even some 17th Century English translators... but some unknown men at some point adding comments in the margins.

He also said we should accept one of the Maccabee books because Origen held it was "Scripture" (with that word). Of course, the very same Origen (and many other ECF) said exactly the same thing about the Epistle of Barnabus and Shepherd of the Hermes but where is he going on and on and on and on and on and on about THOSE books required to thus be regarded as Scripture?


Andrew... brother.... I know this person has influenced you. I just invite you to examine the claims he makes, the (absent) apologetic he offers, the very arbitrary and contradictory way he applies his claims, and how he evades every single solid point that destroys his claims.



.

 

[pinacled]

Not only but something very important has been over looked in Hebrews 11 which has a direct impact upon this discussion. In Hebrews 11:37 the first half of that text reads:

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword."

There is no record of something like that happening in the Old or New Testaments nor the Apocrypha. However such an event is recorded in two other documents.

(1) Ascension of Isaiah - "And they seized Isaiah the son of Amoz and sawed him in half with a wood saw" (5:11).
(2) Lives of the Prophets - "Isaiah was from Jerusalem. He dies by Manasseh, having been sawn in two and was placed beneath the Oak of Rogel (near) the passage of the waters, which Hezekiah stopped, having diked them." (1:1)

Now applying the same methods that have been used in this thread to support 2 Maccabees, it follows that Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets are Scripture as well.

I thought "sawn assunder" was a reference to the oral torah(talmud.
So it is very plausible that the later apocrypha you mentioned were plagiarizing parts of the Talmud.
Ole sh'aul was a pharisee with an extensive education after all

Excerpt:
[ It is related in the Talmud that Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai found in Jerusalem an account wherein it was written that King Manasseh killed Isaiah. King Manasseh said to Isaiah, "Moses, your master, said, 'No man may see God and live';[36] but you have said, 'I saw the Lord seated upon his throne'";[37] and went on to point out other contradictions—as between Deuteronomy 4:7 and Isaiah 40:6; between Exodus 33:23 and 2 Kings 20:6. Isaiah thought: "I know that he will not accept my explanations; why should I increase his guilt?" He then uttered the tetragrammaton, a cedar-tree opened, and Isaiah disappeared within it. King Manasseh ordered the cedar to be sawn asunder, and when the saw reached his mouth Isaiah died; thus was he punished for having said, "I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips"]

All of what nathan claims is about the maccabees is an incorrect assessment to which I provided an answer to "who is being spoken of".
The prophets

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

If you watched the video you will see that it's based on math, science, history and scripture comparison and analysis, you obviously havent watched it or you are completely one sided and made up your mind before watching it.

I watched the entirety.
Quite the impressive display in order to convey an opinion.
Very well orchestrated.

Even so there is no evidence provided with the many assertations.

 

[pinacled]

I was making the point that the Apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament, disproving the claim that they’re not.

I never made the claim that everything mentioned in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament.

The New Testament speaks of Jannes and Jambres, two names not found in the Old Testament. They were the two magicians who opposed Moses. But Exodus never mentions them by name.

Stephen says Moses was 40 when he left Egypt, and 80 when he returned to Egypt. This detail is not found in the book of Exodus or anywhere in the Old Testament.

Whatever the source is for this information, I don’t know. But one thing I do know, is that the King James has a marginal note in Hebrews 11:35, referencing 2 Maccabees 7. The King James in its original printing in 1611 included the book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocryphal section. 2 Maccabees has historically been included in the Bible for over a thousand years before the Reformation of the 1500’s. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared 2 Maccabees to be scripture as early as the 300’s AD.

And yet, Bibles today are.....MISSING IT?

That’s not right.
That’s just not right.

About the 444 of the life of moshe the prophet till his death at 120.

I attempted to show you with a question and then proceeded to answer for the readers to gain insight.

[ The silence you exhibit is a lack of knowledge in the spirit where time is fluid.
The 4 pots poured 3 times were afore specific faithful armored souls beyond the furnace mentioned by danyl and shlomo as a 3 fold cord.
When the strength of a judge and the king put their hands together with the power of prayer.
"Lions mouths are shut"
The sun stood still for those who had a shield of Faith to wash away fiery darts.
A 4th yammin where the day star rises in the Heart.
Hence the 4 pots relating to the Yom when the sun and moon were created.]

As for the 2 magician antagonist mentioned. I'm fairly certain their names are mentioned in oral torah.


Blessings Always

 

[NathanH83]

He did not "admit" anything, a marginal note is just another point that BIBLE readers in times past had acknowledged this same fact

That’s exactly right. The marginal note in the King James is merely what pointed me in the right direction.

After I read 2 Maccabees 7 for myself, I’m able to use my own brain to make the connection, and see that Hebrews 11:35 fits perfectly with the story in 2 Maccabees 7, independent of any King James translator telling me what to think.

But it is also worth mentioning that the best of the best translators, theologians, and Bible scholars in all of England in the 1600’s believed that 2 Maccabees is referenced in Hebrews 11:35.

On top of that, it has been widely accepted among early church fathers that the tortured men referenced in Hebrews is talking about the Maccabean martyrs.

I’m sure that the great Bible teachers of the past probably have a lot more credibility than a bunch of biased guys on an internet forum.

 

[pinacled]

That’s exactly right. The marginal note in the King James is merely what pointed me in the right direction.

After I read 2 Maccabees 7 for myself, I’m able to use my own brain to make the connection, and see that Hebrews 11:35 fits perfectly with the story in 2 Maccabees 7, independent of any King James translator telling me what to think.

But it is also worth mentioning that the best of the best translators, theologians, and Bible scholars in all of England in the 1600’s believed that 2 Maccabees is referenced in Hebrews 11:35.

On top of that, it has been widely accepted among early church fathers that the tortured men referenced in Hebrews is talking about the Maccabean martyrs.

I’m sure that the great Bible teachers of the past probably have a lot more credibility than a bunch of biased guys on an internet forum.

Please provide evidence of this "The marginal note" with either a photo or other source material.

So that hearsay can be dismissed.
Or do you worship a KJV and marginal note.

Thankyou

 

[pinacled]

Why are you reporting all of Nathans threads? Please stop abusing the option to report

I learned early on in my walk with The Lord that in spiritual warfare the enemy will accuse a person of what they have done.

Blessings Always

 

[NathanH83]

I believe the Bible

 

[NathanH83]

Please provide evidence of this "The marginal note" with either a photo or other source material.

So that hearsay can be dismissed.
Or do you worship a KJV and marginal note.

Thankyou