Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[Josiah]

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.

AMAZING how you totally evade every point made to you, every point you need to ignore...

SO, by your (incredible!) logic, The Odyssey by Homer is lost today because no local, non-authoritative, non-ecumenical Christian Council mentioned it. I got news for you, that book is NOT lost! It's read by millions every year. It's some 500 years OLDER than any of the 4 Maccabee books, and I don't think ANY meeting of ANY Christians in ANY context so much as mentioned it, much less officially and univerally declared it to be the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inspired words of God.




You've been shown 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.


You've been shown 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.


You've been shown that books even older than 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees still exist and still are read - even if not declared to be Scripture by Origen.


You've been shown that LOTS of books contain history - even important and accurate history - but the overwhelming majority of them are NOT consider (even by you) to thus be the holy, inerrant, canoncial, normative, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture).


Perhaps you are reading this stuff in some book or at some website..... I encourage you to respect truth and to not just swallow whole whatever you read without examining it and thinking.




.

 

[pinacled]

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?

No,
I would like another photo of the author and copywrite from what you sent before.
I'm guessing that the calligraphy is from the early 1800s.

Prove me wrong

And the handwriting looks generic.

 

[Andrew]

AMAZING how you totally evade every point made to you, every point you need to ignore...

SO, by your (incredible!) logic, The Odyssey by Homer is lost today because no local, non-authoritative, non-ecumenical Christian Council mentioned it. I got news for you, that book is NOT lost! It's read by millions every year. It's some 500 years OLDER than any of the 4 Maccabee books, and I don't think ANY meeting of ANY Christians in ANY context so much as mentioned it, much less officially and univerally declared it to be the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inspired words of God.




You've been shown 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.


You've been shown 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.


You've been shown that books even older than 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees still exist and still are read - even if not declared to be Scripture by Origen.


You've been shown that LOTS of books contain history - even important and accurate history - but the overwhelming majority of them are NOT consider (even by you) to thus be the holy, inerrant, canoncial, normative, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture).


Perhaps you are reading this stuff in some book or at some website..... I encourage you to respect truth and to not just swallow whole whatever you read without examining it and thinking.




.

The Odyssey is not a Jewish book, what Jewish book from the OT times has survived today that has anything other to do with Judaism?

 

[Josiah]

The Odyssey is not a Jewish book, what Jewish book from the OT times has survived today that has anything other to do with Judaism?

Nice evasion.... Here, verbatim, is the last of his many, many, many absurd, baseless claims... "

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.

His point is that we'd not have First and/or Second Maccabees today if not some Christian meeting supposedly did something. It's yet another in a long, long, extremely long list of absurd, baseless (and evasive) claims. Indeed, we still have Third and Fourth Maccabees but they weren't mention at the meetings he notes. We still have Psalm 151 (I've read it many times) and it's older than First Maccabees and was written in Hebrew... we still have it although the meetings he notes didn't mention it.



It's been shown that his claim that the words found in Hebrews includes a book reference to 2 Maccabees is flat out wrong. He 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.


It's been shown that his 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. Truth matters. Honesty matters.


It's been shown that books even older than 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees still exist and still are read - even if not declared to be Scripture by Origen.


It's been shown that LOTS of books contain history - even important and accurate history - but the overwhelming majority of them are NOT consider (even by him) to thus be the holy, inerrant, canoncial, normative, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture).


It's been shown that books even older than First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees still exist and are still read.... as if "old still existing" proves thus is therefore the inerrant, holy, canonical, normative, divinely-inspired words of God.


But no matter what, our brother just ignores and evades and follows with an even more incredible, irrelevant claim..... only to be corrected but such ignored. I don't know if he cares.... but I believe you do.



.


.

 

[Andrew]

No,
I would like another photo of the author and copywrite from what you sent before.
I'm guessing that the calligraphy is from the early 1800s.

Prove me wrong

The Holy Bible
1611 Edition
King James Version

(word-for-word facsimile of the original 1611)

Hendrickson publishers

 

[Andrew]

Nice evasion.... His point is that we'd not have First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees today if not some irrelvant Christian meeting supposedly did something. It's yet another in a long, long, extremely long list of absurd, baseless (and evasive) claims.



.

It was important enough to circulate throughout early Christendom, it didn't just appear in the hands of Christians without it being accepted, it didn't just wiggle its way into our Bibles, there is no logic in that scenario.. the only logical possibility is that it was removed from the hands of Christians later on

 

[pinacled]

The Holy Bible
1611 Edition
King James Version

(word-for-word facsimile of the original 1611)

Hendrickson publishers

Ah,
So Andrew is also nathan.

Your voice in the spirit is revealing.

 

[Andrew]

Ah,
So Andrew is also nathan.

ok.. you're welcome btw

 

[Josiah]

It was important enough to circulate throughout early Christendom, it didn't just appear in the hands of Christians without it being accepted, it didn't just wiggle its way into our Bibles, there is no logic in that scenario.. the only logical possibility is that it was removed from the hands of Christians later on

Andrew....

LOTS of books were circulated throughout early Christiandom..... Some of them were SPECIFICALLY CALLED "SCRIPTURE" by several esteemed Fathers. A small sample of such are: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas. The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of James, the Apocalypse of Peter and several more. Letters from Clement and Ignatius and several others were WIDELY read and circulated all over Christiandom. So, the rubric "If circulated, ergo the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)" is valid and sound, then you need to be arguing equally for a LOT of other books.... But I don't think Nathan holds to his own claims and positions..... and I think it wise that no one else does.

This endless list of evasive, ever-changing claims are historically wrong, baseless and arbitrarily and inconsistenly applied. I think truth matters. I think you do, too.




.

 

[pinacled]

ok.. you're welcome btw

Shabbat Shalom

 

[RichWh1]

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.

Whether the writer of Hebrews was referring to the book of Maccabees is irrelevant. If the writer did refer to it, that doesn’t make it inspired or canonical. It merely means that it’s history and was referred to by the author of Hebrews.
The fact that other Old Testament writings might have been referred to is moot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

LOTS of books were circulated throughout early Christiandom..... Some of them were SPECIFICALLY CALLED "SCRIPTURE" by several esteemed Fathers. A small sample of such are: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas. The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of James, the Apocalypse of Peter and several more. Letters from Clement and Ignatius and several others were WIDELY read and circulated all over Christiandom. So, the rubric "If circulated, ergo the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)" then you need to be arguing equally for a LOT of other books.... But I don't think Nathan holds to his own claims and positions..... and I think it wise no one else does.

This endless list of evasive, ever-changing claims are historically wrong, baseless and arbitrarily and inconsistenly applied. I think truth matters. I think you do, too.




.

Hold up, OF COURSE Christian letters and testimonials etc circulated among Christians!

This book was written well before the advent of Christianity, it wasn't Greek mythology either, it was a Jewish writing translated into a common language at the time (Greek) and the story of Maccabees is still apart of synagogue liturgy of the Ashkenazic, Yemenite and Sephardic rites during the 25th Kislev to 2nd Tevet.

You bet Christians found other Christian writings as inspired but that has nothing to do with pre Christian writings that entered into Christendom

 

[Andrew]

Whether the writer of Hebrews was referring to the book of Maccabees is irrelevant. If the writer did refer to it, that doesn’t make it inspired or canonical. It merely means that it’s history and was referred to by the author of Hebrews.
The fact that other Old Testament writings might have been referred to is moot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Context shows us that Paul was addressing hebrews (not pagan gentiles) and was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith in this sermon, he does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans, he is using what the Jews relate to

 

[pinacled]

Whether the writer of Hebrews was referring to the book of Maccabees is irrelevant. If the writer did refer to it, that doesn’t make it inspired or canonical. It merely means that it’s history and was referred to by the author of Hebrews.
The fact that other Old Testament writings might have been referred to is moot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probability

 

[NathanH83]

AMAZING how you totally evade every point made to you, every point you need to ignore...

SO, by your (incredible!) logic, The Odyssey by Homer is lost today because no local, non-authoritative, non-ecumenical Christian Council mentioned it. I got news for you, that book is NOT lost! It's read by millions every year. It's some 500 years OLDER than any of the 4 Maccabee books, and I don't think ANY meeting of ANY Christians in ANY context so much as mentioned it, much less officially and univerally declared it to be the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inspired words of God.




You've been shown 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.


You've been shown 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.


You've been shown that books even older than 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees still exist and still are read - even if not declared to be Scripture by Origen.


You've been shown that LOTS of books contain history - even important and accurate history - but the overwhelming majority of them are NOT consider (even by you) to thus be the holy, inerrant, canoncial, normative, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture).


Perhaps you are reading this stuff in some book or at some website..... I encourage you to respect truth and to not just swallow whole whatever you read without examining it and thinking.




.

The Hebrew original to 1 Maccabees is lost today.

 

[RichWh1]

Context shows us that Paul was addressing hebrews (not pagan gentiles) and was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith in this sermon, he does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans, he is using what the Jews relate to

I would have to agree with you. The author was writing to Hebrews, Jews and referred to the Old Testament in the writings. So the quotes would have come from Scripture rather than a non canonical writing.

There is a dispute by most scholars today and many no longer believe that Paul was the author of Hebrews.
That would take another thread to discuss this. Reasons are vocabulary is not Paul’s ; the introduction is unfamiliar to Paul.
Battery dying; need to stop for now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

No,
I would like another photo of the author and copywrite from what you sent before.
I'm guessing that the calligraphy is from the early 1800s.

Prove me wrong

And the handwriting looks generic.

Oh, ok. That’s a picture I took from the original King James. I got it in 2011. It was a special edition for the 400-year anniversary for the King James Bible. So they made a photocopy replica of the original 1611 printing. I saw it at Walmart so I bought it. It was only $11, I think.

Actually, it’s not complete though, because they removed the Apocrypha!

So, everything else is a photocopy replica of the original King James. But the apocryphal section is missing. They even photoshopped the table of contents to remove the apocrypha between the Testaments, and then moved up the New Testament to make it seem like the Apocrypha was never there. Absolutely hilarious. But the marginal notes in the New Testament are still there.

I’m not exactly sure what proof you want. Amazon has photocopy replicas of the original King James. I also downloaded a PDF of the original 1611 KJV. I could send it to you if you want, if you don’t want to spend money on Amazon. But I can send you an Amazon link to the version I bought at Walmart.

I mean, it kind of sounds like you’re asking me to do your homework for you. Are you doubting that the original King James has this marginal note? I mean, what are you looking for? Get one for yourself and see if it matches the picture I sent.

Do you want me to send a picture of something else? The title page of the original King James? The Title page of the book of Hebrews? I mean, what do you want? I told you what it is. If you think I’m lying then look into it yourself and see for yourself. You don’t need me to spoon feed it to you.

 

[pinacled]

I would have to agree with you. The author was writing to Hebrews, Jews and referred to the Old Testament in the writings. So the quotes would have come from Scripture rather than a non canonical writing.

There is a dispute by most scholars today and many no longer believe that Paul was the author of Hebrews.
That would take another thread to discuss this. Reasons are vocabulary is not Paul’s ; the introduction is unfamiliar to Paul.
Battery dying; need to stop for now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speech patterns reveal an author

 

[pinacled]

Oh, ok. That’s a picture I took from the original King James. I got it in 2011. It was a special edition for the 400-year anniversary for the King James Bible. So they made a photocopy replica of the original 1611 printing. I saw it at Walmart so I bought it. It was only $11, I think.

Actually, it’s not complete though, because they removed the Apocrypha!

So, everything else is a photocopy replica of the original King James. But the apocryphal section is missing. They even photoshopped the table of contents to remove the apocrypha between the Testaments, and then moved up the New Testament to make it seem like the Apocrypha was never there. Absolutely hilarious. But the marginal notes in the New Testament are still there.

I’m not exactly sure what proof you want. Amazon has photocopy replicas of the original King James. I also downloaded a PDF of the original 1611 KJV. I could send it to you if you want, if you don’t want to spend money on Amazon. But I can send you an Amazon link to the version I bought at Walmart.

I mean, it kind of sounds like you’re asking me to do your homework for you. Are you doubting that the original King James has this marginal note? I mean, what are you looking for? Get one for yourself and see if it matches the picture I sent.

Do you want me to send a picture of something else? The title page of the original King James? The Title page of the book of Hebrews? I mean, what do you want? I told you what it is. If you think I’m lying then look into it yourself and see for yourself. You don’t need me to spoon feed it to you.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Andrew]

Welcome to the forum.

That's rude.