Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[NathanH83]

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

Are you accusing me of taking numbers out of the genealogies in the Bible, and then publishing my own translation?
Hmmm... sounds crazy to me. I’ve never done that.

 

[pinacled]

Awesome photo evidence.
Thankyou for sharing such a treasure from history.

I'm guessing by the calligraphy style that this book was written in the early 1800s

Is there a copywriter date.?

 

[pinacled]

Are you accusing me of taking numbers out of the genealogies in the Bible, and then publishing my own translation?
Hmmm... sounds crazy to me. I’ve never done that.

Just wondering about your resume and who influenced your manners of judgement.

 

[NathanH83]

Just wondering about your resume and who influenced your manners of judgement.

I just don’t think Shem outlived a bunch of his sons and grandsons. That’s ridiculous.

 

[pinacled]

I just don’t think Shem outlived a bunch of his sons and grandsons. That’s ridiculous.

I agree that shem is a difficult topic.
And how many sons of noah are like trees.

What kind of tree of the ark would you consider shem?

Hint;
3 sons likened to trees.

 

[pinacled]

I just don’t think Shem outlived a bunch of his sons and grandsons. That’s ridiculous.

Are you willing to accept that Ha'shem is the first cedar in the ark that was laid with Gold as a ballast?

Each child of noach represents a tree.
Shem being cedar is likened to gold.
Yapheth being silver and another tree that I leave for you to guess the measure of.
The third child of noach is an oak where ham struggled to regain honor.....and where the absolom met a fate.

Hence a 3rd of trees destroyed.

Blessings Always

 

[NathanH83]

Are you willing to accept that Ha'shem is the first cedar in the ark that was laid with Gold as a ballast?

Each child of noach represents a tree.
Shem being cedar is likened to gold.
Yapheth being silver and another tree that I leave for you to guess the measure of.
The third child of noach is an oak where ham struggled to regain honor.....and where the absolom met a fate.

Hence a 3rd of trees destroyed.

Blessings Always

That literally has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

Do you believe Shem outlived a bunch of his descendants? Did you even listen to my argument in the video?

 

[pinacled]

That literally has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

Do you believe Shem outlived a bunch of his descendants? Did you even listen to my argument in the video?

Your video argument lacked armor and treasure youngin.
Replace gold with fruit and you'll find measure.

What type of tree is yapheth out of 2 blessed sons ?

You've much to learn youngin

 

[Josiah]

SOOO, Hebrews does not reference 2 Maccabees - you finally admit - you found that in the marginal notes of an unnamed commentator in a 17th Century translation! 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 an unknown commentator of a 17th Century translation making a comment in a margin.


I think we can close this thread now.

That’s exactly right.

Then your foundational claim is wrong. Hebrews does NOT give a book reference to 2 Maccabees. Some unknown person ADDED a comment in the margins of a study version of a 17th Century ENGLISH TRANSLATION of Hebrews. Obviously, undeniably, an entirely different issue. Your claim simply is false.


You furthermore claimed we all must accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture because a man named Origen did. I proved that Origen (and several other Church Fathers) also embraced the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas specifically as "Scripture" - they repeatedly did - so by your point, we all must accept these books ALSO specifically as "Scripture" but you aren't suggesting they thus are Scripture.... I don't think you accept your own apologetic, certainly no reason for others to do so.




.

 

[Andrew]

Then your foundational claim is wrong. Hebrews does NOT give a book reference to 2 Maccabees. Some unknown person ADDED a comment in the margins of a study version of a 17th Century ENGLISH TRANSLATION of Hebrews. Obviously, undeniably, an entirely different issue. Your claim simply is false.


You furthermore claimed we all must accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture because a man named Origen did. I proved that Origen (and several other Church Fathers) also embraced the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas specifically as "Scripture" - they repeatedly did - so by your point, we all must accept these books ALSO specifically as "Scripture" but you aren't suggesting they thus are Scripture.... I don't think you accept your own apologetic, certainly no reason for others to do so.




.

So... because there is a marginal note it by default disqualifies 2 Maccabees as the most likely or even definite reference in Hebrews?

 

[NathanH83]

Then your foundational claim is wrong. Hebrews does NOT give a book reference to 2 Maccabees. Some unknown person ADDED a comment in the margins of a study version of a 17th Century ENGLISH TRANSLATION of Hebrews. Obviously, undeniably, an entirely different issue. Your claim simply is false.


You furthermore claimed we all must accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture because a man named Origen did. I proved that Origen (and several other Church Fathers) also embraced the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas specifically as "Scripture" - they repeatedly did - so by your point, we all must accept these books ALSO specifically as "Scripture" but you aren't suggesting they thus are Scripture.... I don't think you accept your own apologetic, certainly no reason for others to do so.




.

You still haven’t explained who the tortured men are, genius. 2 Maccabees 7 is still the best and only option. You literally have not explained anything.

 

[pinacled]

That literally has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

Do you believe Shem outlived a bunch of his descendants? Did you even listen to my argument in the video?

Are you willing to show further evidence by providing the copywrite date of the bible you're citing from.

Such information will help an understanding in conversation.

Blessings Always

 

[Josiah]

You have not explained anything.

Wrong.


I've explained that your claim that the words found in Hebrews includes a book reference to 2 Maccabees is flat out wrong. You FINALLY (how long did it take?) admitted it does not. It's some COMMENT made by some unknown person in the MARGIN of a study version of an English translation done 1600 years after Hebrews was written that contains a book reference to 2 Maccabees. Truth matters. Honesty matters.


And I've explained that your claim that 2 Maccabees must be regarded as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) BECAUSE a guy named Origen said it was is ABSURD (laughable) because Origen (and many others) ALSO said that the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermes are "Scripture" yet you aren't going on and on and on and on and on, in thread after thread, that those books must be embraced as Scripture.




.

 

[RichWh1]

The history of the Maccabees, while not in the Canon of Scripture is a historical book that deals with the Maccabee family, a Jewish family who lived between the Testaments.

Their history is factual


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The history of the Maccabees, while not in the Canon of Scripture is a historical book that deals with the Maccabee family, a Jewish family who lived between the Testaments.

.... and YES, it is VERY VALUABLE to read and learn! Very important history! Very accurate history! It's why Luther and the Anglican Church INCLUDED 2 of the 4 Books of Maccabees in their tomes!

But I do not agree that every book worth reading and that contains important and accurate history is THUS, ergo, by that reason, the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God (Scripture). IF that were true, our Bible would contain MILLIONS of books; And I don't agree that just because Jews or Christians read a book THUS, ergo, for that reason, such must be regarded by us as Scripture. If that were so, we'd have DOZENS if not hundreds or thousands more books in tomes with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover.



.

 

[pinacled]

The history of the Maccabees, while not in the Canon of Scripture is a historical book that deals with the Maccabee family, a Jewish family who lived between the Testaments.

Their history is factual


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The issue is that maccabees is being imposed on a verse in Hebrews by the op.
And they have been shown numerous old testament and oral Torah writings for reference..that refute their claims.

Then by choice the op has ignored such information(Truth) and engaged further with an agenda.

 

[NathanH83]

Are you willing to show further evidence by providing the copywrite date of the bible you're citing from.

Such information will help an understanding in conversation.

Blessings Always

What do you want the copyright from? The 1611 King James? I don’t know what you’re asking. The copyright of the Septuagint? Can you actually be specific for once?

 

[NathanH83]

.... and YES, it is VERY VALUABLE to read and learn! Very important history! Very accurate history! It's why Luther and the Anglican Church INCLUDED 2 of the 4 Books of Maccabees in their tomes!

But I do not agree that every book worth reading and that contains important and accurate history is THUS, ergo, by that reason, the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God (Scripture). IF that were true, our Bible would contain MILLIONS of books; And I don't agree that just because Jews or Christians read a book THUS, ergo, for that reason, such must be regarded by us as Scripture. If that were so, we'd have DOZENS if not hundreds or thousands more books in tomes with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover.



.

If 1 and 2 Maccabees hadn’t been declared to be canonical scripture by early church councils, then those books would be lost to time. We wouldn’t have them today.

 

[NathanH83]

The history of the Maccabees, while not in the Canon of Scripture is a historical book that deals with the Maccabee family, a Jewish family who lived between the Testaments.

Their history is factual


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many early church councils declared 1 and 2 Maccabees to be divine canonical scripture. They said so in the 300’s. Your claim that it’s “just history” and “not canon” is just an opinion...an opinion which most of the early church did not share. But you state it as fact, as if everyone has to agree with you.

Well, guess what? I don’t have to agree with you. Your “fact” is only an opinion.

 

[Andrew]

.... and YES, it is VERY VALUABLE to read and learn! Very important history! Very accurate history! It's why Luther and the Anglican Church INCLUDED 2 of the 4 Books of Maccabees in their tomes!

But I do not agree that every book worth reading and that contains important and accurate history is THUS, ergo, by that reason, the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God (Scripture). IF that were true, our Bible would contain MILLIONS of books; And I don't agree that just because Jews or Christians read a book THUS, ergo, for that reason, such must be regarded by us as Scripture. If that were so, we'd have DOZENS if not hundreds or thousands more books in tomes with "HOLY BIBLE" written on the cover.



.

To understand Bible prophecy you must understand the historical accounts recorded therein (opposed to secular versions of history) to verify that it indeed was fulfilled, so no its not just a great history lesson, it's a Jewish account of great importance to the Jewish people passed down and retold even to this day during Hanukkah, it contains more than just some trivial ancient military stuff, secular history does not record the prayers to God, the praises to God, the mercy of God, the hope and trust in God, the hope and trust in the resurrection, the stirring up of courage through visions, the wrath of God against the enemies of God etc..