Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Josiah]

Where is the proof that Jews for over 2000 years have celebrated an event BECAUSE they accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is universally seen by all Jews as The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) ? I'm not asking if it's LIKELY the Jews read history books... I'm not asking if there are accurate history books in the world. I'm asking for the proof that the Jews for over 2000 years have celebrated an event BECAUSE they all (for over 2000 years) accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say the Five Books of Moses?


.

 

[Castle Church]

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ had 1 Maccabees in Hebrew and included in the Hebrew Bible. That’s why it was included in the Greek translation used by Jews, and later accepted by Christians.

It was only after 90 AD at the council of Jamnia (after the start of Christianity) that the unbelieving Jews took Maccabees out of their Hebrew Bible. But the Christians continued using the Greek translation which included Maccabees.

So, yes, Maccabees is holy canonical scripture, just like Esther is. The early church declared this at multiple early church councils in the 300’s.

Of course the Jews don’t accept it today. That’s the point. They took it out.

The Hebrew originals for 1 Maccabees are missing today. If a Jew today wants to read Maccabees in Hebrew, they have to translate it from Greek back into Hebrew. And this is what they did. And this is why you can find Hebrew versions of 1 Maccabees, because they translated it back into Hebrew.

Many Jews are completely confused as to why it’s not included in the Hebrew Bible. They celebrate it every winter, but it’s not in their Bibles, and it makes no sense to many of them why is not included.

Basically, the unbelieving rabbis of the 1st century wanted to say that the New Testament is not scripture, and that Jesus and John the Baptist are not prophets.

So they said that the last prophets were in Ezra’s day, and there are no prophets after the time of Ezra, and therefore no scripture after the time of Ezra. This way they say nobody in the New Testament is a prophet, and the New Testament is not scripture.

But in doing so, they discredited the Maccabees, since it comes after the time of Ezra. Thus, Maccabees had to go. So 90 AD, at the council of Jamnia, they took it out.

That's not entirely true. The fact is, there is some pretty reasonable scholarly work that believes that the Hebrew canon was decided before Jamnia and only formalized then. Whether any book about the Maccabees was included is up for debate. The reality is: we just don't know for sure when the Hebrew canon crystalized, to claim otherwise is to also ignore other evidence.

Basically, the unbelieving rabbis of the 1st century wanted to say that the New Testament is not scripture, and that Jesus and John the Baptist are not prophets.

That is certainly a possible reason, but it is also speculative.

The celebration of the Festival of Lights, the rededication of the Temple is described in Maccabees, but again, that does not mean that the book itself is why the celebrate the holiday (it is not), and it also does not mean that simply because a day is celebrated that the "origin story" is also scripture.

Look, in the end, I actually think that it is scripture. I tend to lean more Catholic in that regard. But I think that your reason that it should be scripture, because there is a Jewish holiday built around the event described in the text, is faulty.

 

[Josiah]

I think that your reason that it should be scripture, because there is a Jewish holiday built around the event described in the text, is faulty.

Worse than "faulty." It's absurd.

And entirely unsubstantiated. Where is the proof that Jews for over 2000 years have celebrated an event BECAUSE they accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is universally seen by all Jews as The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) ? I'm not asking if it's LIKELY the Jews read history books... I'm not asking if there are accurate history books in the world. I'm asking for the proof that the Jews for over 2000 years have celebrated an event BECAUSE they all (for over 2000 years) accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say the Five Books of Moses?




.

 

[Andrew]

The celebration of the Festival of Lights, the rededication of the Temple is described in Maccabees, but again, that does not mean that the book itself is why the celebrate the holiday (it is not), and it also does not mean that simply because a day is celebrated that the "origin story" is also scripture.
.

The original Pascal that we now call easter included fasting from Friday night until Sunday morning and Saturday through the night they prayed.. this holiday wasnt created or celebrated by those who had witnessed the accounts, not by the disciples, apostles, or the apostles disciples, it was based from the accounts of the Gospel.

The origin stories are always found in scripture, the holidays are created for remembrance and celebration of the events that had occured generations earlier, in Judaism it regarded their ancestors during Exodus. Maccabees was written by Jews and mass produced and used in the synagogues, so what the Jews read during Hanukkah is the story of Judah Maccabee, Hanukkah like every Jewish Holiday has its origins based on certain events in scripture... scriptures written by Jews... like the books of Maccabees

 

[Josiah]

The origin stories are always found in scripture, the holidays are created for remembrance and celebration of the events that had occured generations earlier, in Judaism it regarded their ancestors during Exodus. Maccabees was written by Jews and mass produced and used in the synagogues, so what the Jews read during Hanukkah is the story of Judah Maccabee, Hanukkah like every Jewish Holiday has its origins based on certain events in scripture... scriptures written by Jews... like the books of Maccabees

Brother, this is a classic case of circular reasoning.


I don't think anyone doubts that Jews (then and now) celebrate an historical event, one that is recorded in one of the 4 Maccabee books (and elsewhere). But brother, it is an absurd, incredible LEAP to insist Jews THEREFORE all Jews must regard one of the 4 Maccabee books as Scripture - and thus so must all Christians (email your local Jewish rabbi and ask him or her if they accept any book with the word "maccabees" in the moniker as Scripture - and if they celebrate this event).




.

 

[NathanH83]

That's not entirely true. The fact is, there is some pretty reasonable scholarly work that believes that the Hebrew canon was decided before Jamnia and only formalized then. Whether any book about the Maccabees was included is up for debate. The reality is: we just don't know for sure when the Hebrew canon crystalized, to claim otherwise is to also ignore other evidence.


That is certainly a possible reason, but it is also speculative.

The celebration of the Festival of Lights, the rededication of the Temple is described in Maccabees, but again, that does not mean that the book itself is why the celebrate the holiday (it is not), and it also does not mean that simply because a day is celebrated that the "origin story" is also scripture.

Look, in the end, I actually think that it is scripture. I tend to lean more Catholic in that regard. But I think that your reason that it should be scripture, because there is a Jewish holiday built around the event described in the text, is faulty.

My reason is that the Septuagint included it in the centuries before Christ. The Jews put it in their Greek translation. That’s the only logical explanation as to why the early churches accepted it.

 

[Castle Church]

My reason is that the Septuagint included it in the centuries before Christ. The Jews put it in their Greek translation. That’s the only logical explanation as to why the early churches accepted it.

And that is a reasonable position to take.

But it is a different reason than the posited OP in this thread: that because Jews celebrate Hanukkah and Hanukkah is the celebration of the success of the Maccabees (as described in the books of Maccabees), those books should be used as scripture.

As I said, I actually do believe the books are scripture, but just not from the OP reasoning.

 

[NathanH83]

Brother, this is a classic case of circular reasoning.


I don't think anyone doubts that Jews (then and now) celebrate an historical event, one that is recorded in one of the 4 Maccabee books (and elsewhere). But brother, it is an absurd, incredible LEAP to insist Jews THEREFORE all Jews must regard one of the 4 Maccabee books as Scripture - and thus so must all Christians (email your local Jewish rabbi and ask him or her if they accept any book with the word "maccabees" in the moniker as Scripture - and if they celebrate this event).




.

If anyone is using circular reasoning, it’s you.

Your whole entire belief is based upon what the unbelieving rabbis today say. You just assume that these people who reject Christ are actually telling you the truth. And you assume that all these early church councils who accepted Christ are all liars.

Your thinking is so backwards. You believe the unbelievers, and disbelieve the believers.

The only logical conclusion is that the reason why these early Christians accepted Maccabees is because it was in the Greek translation that they were given in the beginning. The Jews who lived before Christ included it in the Greek translation, and that Greek translation was given to the church, so the church accepted the books it contains.

You’re letting today’s Jewish rabbis put blinders over your eyes.

Have you seen my video which shows how the rabbis removed 650 years from the genealogies in Genesis 11? The Hebrew Masoretic has clearly been tampered with.

If there is one thing that could convince you that Maccabees belongs, what would it be? A quote from a Jew who lived before Christ? What would it take?

It seems to me that you’re just closed minded, and reject Maccabees no matter what kind of undeniable evidence comes your way. You’ll use any logic and any reasoning, even if it’s circular, to reject these books. The truth is, you’re just following unbelieving Jewish rabbis instead of seeking the Truth.

 

[Andrew]

Brother, this is a classic case of circular reasoning.


I don't think anyone doubts that Jews (then and now) celebrate an historical event, one that is recorded in one of the 4 Maccabee books (and elsewhere). But brother, it is an absurd, incredible LEAP to insist Jews THEREFORE all Jews must regard one of the 4 Maccabee books as Scripture - and thus so must all Christians (email your local Jewish rabbi and ask him or her if they accept any book with the word "maccabees" in the moniker as Scripture - and if they celebrate this event).




.

Ask a Jewish Rabbi if they accept the word "Jesus" in the monikar as Scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Your whole entire belief is based upon what the unbelieving rabbis today say

1. My "belief" is that it's absurd to presume that if a book contains history, ERGO it must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians MUST so regard it. THAT is my "whole entire belief" in this matter.

2. The point was that an event is celebrated by Jews BECAUSE they accept a certain, specific history book asThe inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.... well.... if you actually THOUGHT about that, it is obviously absurd. For 2000 years, Jews have been celebrating this very event and yet do NOT accept any book with "Maccabees" appearing in the moniker as Scripture. Since MILLIONS of Jews for TWO THOUSAND YEARS can and DO celebrate event without accepting any book which records it specifically as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, then why is it IMPOSSIBLE for the Jews in Jesus' day to do so?

3. Yes, obviously, the post I responded to is "circular reasoning." He assumes a book is Scripture and thus is Scripture. He writes, "Hanukkah has its origins based on certain events in scripture... scriptures written by Jews... like the books of Maccabees." A perfect (if extreme) case of circular reasoning. Like often used by you.




I think you have shown that an event celebrated by millions and millions of Jews is recorded in a book with "Maccabees" in the moniker (as well as other places). But I don't think anyone challenges or doubts that. The point being challenged is that THEREFORE, books with "Maccabees" in the moniker MUST, THEREFORE, ERGO, be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. An AMAZING claim! And you have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Brother.... THINK..... an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore being the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians. THINK. Your whole premise is just, well, absurd.




.

 

[Andrew]

1. My "belief" is that it's absurd to presume that if a book contains history, ERGO it must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians MUST so regard it. THAT is my "whole entire belief" in this matter.

2. The point was that an event is celebrated by Jews BECAUSE they accept a certain, specific history book asThe inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.... well.... if you actually THOUGHT about that, it is obviously absurd. For 2000 years, Jews have been celebrating this very event and yet do NOT accept any book with "Maccabees" appearing in the moniker as Scripture. Since MILLIONS of Jews for TWO THOUSAND YEARS can and DO celebrate event without accepting any book which records it specifically as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, then why is it IMPOSSIBLE for the Jews in Jesus' day to do so?

3. Yes, obviously, the post I responded to is "circular reasoning." He assumes a book is Scripture and thus is Scripture. He writes, "Hanukkah has its origins based on certain events in scripture... scriptures written by Jews... like the books of Maccabees." A perfect (if extreme) case of circular reasoning. Like often used by you.




I think you have shown that an event celebrated by millions and millions of Jews is recorded in a book with "Maccabees" in the moniker (as well as other places). But I don't think anyone challenges or doubts that. The point being challenged is that THEREFORE, books with "Maccabees" in the moniker MUST, THEREFORE, ERGO, be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. An AMAZING claim! And you have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Brother.... THINK..... an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it thus, ergo, therefore, being the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians. THINK. Your whole premise is just, well, absurd. I have no idea where you are getting this stuff you echo here, but brother, THINK before you paste it.




.

The ENTIRE BIBLE CONTAINS HISTORY my friend.
Also the JEWS had no canon nor any use for one

 

[Josiah]

The ENTIRE BIBLE CONTAINS HISTORY my friend.

All men are humans but not all humans are men. Consider that.


Brother, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of books contain history. Many of them record such accurately. Where is your proof that ergo they all are therefore The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be accepted as such by all Jews and Christian.

No one, brother, challenges that one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker contains history. Not even that that record is accurate. No one is challenging that there are books containing history among the billions and billions of books written. But brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.

the Jews had no canon

There goes your argument that they accepted a book with "Maccabees" in the moniker as canonical. I don't doubt that in Jesus' day, some Jews READ some books and that at least some of the Maccabee books might have been among those books. But what I reject is your whole claim that they celebrated an event BECAUSE they accepted one of the books that mentions it as the CANONICAL words of God. If they didn't necessarily accept ANY book as canonical (as you now claim) how can you place your entire apologetic on the point that Jews and Christians accepted Second Maccabees as canonical? Brother, if 2 Maccabees was not canonical (Scripture) then how can you argue that an event it mentions was celebrated for the sole and only reason that all Jews accepted that book as canonical?

Brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture), and it being mandated that all Jews and Christians so regard it.



Blessings on your Easter season....


Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

All men are humans but not all humans are men. Consider that.


Brother, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of books contain history. Many of them record such accurately. Where is your proof that ergo they all are therefore The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be accepted as such by all Jews and Christian.

No one, brother, challenges that one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker contains history. Not even that that record is accurate. No one is challenging that there are books containing history among the billions and billions of books written. But brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.







There goes your argument that they accepted any book with "Maccabees" in the moniker as canonical. I don't doubt that in Jesus' day, some Jews READ some books and that at least some of the Maccabee books might have been among those books. But what I reject is your whole claim that they celebrated an event BECAUSE they accepted one of the books that mentions it as the CANONICAL words of God. If they didn't necessarily accept ANY book as canonical (as you now claim) how can you place your entire apologetic on the point that Jews and Christians accepted Second Maccabees as canonical? Brother, if 2 Maccabees was not canonical (Scripture) then how can you argue that an event it mentions was celebrated for the sole and only reason that all Jews accepted that book as canonical?

Brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture), and it being mandated that all Jews and Christians so regard it.



Blessings on your Easter season....


Josiah




.

They had no official canon, books were added as time went on, there was no need to have x amount of books like the Christians did with the New Testament, with us we have a cut off because "it is finished". The Jews made the first and ONLY canon of scripture in response to Christianity in the 1rst Century, that was their cut off and because John was a prophet and the Jews rejected him then the cut off point is with prophet that preceded John THUS the 400 years in between the two prophets were not included in the official Jewish canon of books.

Look at it this way, had ALL the Jews accepted Christ as Messiah and ALL had become Christians then John would be another prophet just like the others before him and there would no "400 years of silence", the cut off would end with Revelation and the ONLY CANON EVER IN BIBLICAL HISTORY would be established to cut off any other gospel which is no gospel at all (ie the gnostic gospels)

 

[Josiah]

They had no official canon, books were added as time went on

Which is it?' How can books be added to a canon if there was no canon?

, there was no need to have x amount of books like the Christians did with the New Testament, with us we have a cut off because "it is finished". ]

I have no clue what you are talking about. Where did anything or anyone decided there had to be 27 books in the NT? And WHAT (pray tell) does that have to do with your point that one of the Maccabee books MUST be accepted as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscriptured words of God BECAUSE that book (among others) reports an event which Jews to this day celebrate?


And what is the "400 years of silence" point (you put quotes around it).... never heard of that.... and how does that prove that if there is an accurate report of history in a book, ergo that book must be inerrant, canonical Scripture and all Jews and Christians MUST accept it as such and put it in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover?

The Jews made the first and ONLY canon of scripture in response to Christianity in the 1rst Century

Then how can a book be seen as canonical (as you insist is the case with at least one of the 4 books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) but there were no canonical books?


YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an even which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, here's where you loose me: How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that even THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and therefore must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.




See post 72.




.

 

[NathanH83]

1. My "belief" is that it's absurd to presume that if a book contains history, ERGO it must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians MUST so regard it. THAT is my "whole entire belief" in this matter.

2. The point was that an event is celebrated by Jews BECAUSE they accept a certain, specific history book asThe inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.... well.... if you actually THOUGHT about that, it is obviously absurd. For 2000 years, Jews have been celebrating this very event and yet do NOT accept any book with "Maccabees" appearing in the moniker as Scripture. Since MILLIONS of Jews for TWO THOUSAND YEARS can and DO celebrate event without accepting any book which records it specifically as The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, then why is it IMPOSSIBLE for the Jews in Jesus' day to do so?

3. Yes, obviously, the post I responded to is "circular reasoning." He assumes a book is Scripture and thus is Scripture. He writes, "Hanukkah has its origins based on certain events in scripture... scriptures written by Jews... like the books of Maccabees." A perfect (if extreme) case of circular reasoning. Like often used by you.




I think you have shown that an event celebrated by millions and millions of Jews is recorded in a book with "Maccabees" in the moniker (as well as other places). But I don't think anyone challenges or doubts that. The point being challenged is that THEREFORE, books with "Maccabees" in the moniker MUST, THEREFORE, ERGO, be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. An AMAZING claim! And you have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Brother.... THINK..... an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore being the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians. THINK. Your whole premise is just, well, absurd.




.

Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?

What do you mean I’ve done nothing to support the claim that it’s scripture?

3 early church councils in the 300’s declared Maccabees to be scripture.

THREE.

How many early church councils can you point to that rejected them?

ZERO.


Good grief. You won’t even listen to the early church? That’s so dishonest.

 

[Origen]

The Jews made the first and ONLY canon of scripture in response to Christianity in the 1rst Century

Please cite the 1st Century primary source for that information.

Primary sources are "documents, images, or artifacts that provide firsthand testimony or direct evidence concerning an historical topic under research investigation."

 

[Josiah]

3 early church councils in the 300’s declared Maccabees to be scripture.

I see. So, you accept completely every meeting of every denomination as binding on you and all Christians. Hum. I'll keep that in mind. But I think you don't tell the truth.... I suspect that you accept ANY little meeting you can dig up out of obsurity IF it SEEMS to support you.... and ignore every one that doesn't. I'd like to see you embrace every article of the Council of Trent or Vatican II.


But let's look at this claim....

NONE - not one - of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (4-7 of which are accepted by all Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants) ever mentions the canon. It never came up. NOTHING was decided by ANY of them.... not even DISCUSSED at any of them. Add the 14 additional meetings CALLED "Ecumenical" but actually only the meeting of ONE, just one singular denomination (the Catholic Church - NO Eastern bishops were alllowed), and yup, we have one.... in the 16th Century... that declared the Canon - but you don't accept this meeting and you don't agree with it's canon (none other than the Catholic Church does). NOTHING ecumenical, NOTHING early. NOTHING from the Church. NOTHING. The Early Church did NOTHING concerning the Canon. AFTER that era, some western dioceses of the Catholic Church did some things about the Lectionary of their parishes but that's a whole different issue.


Now, the Catholic Church dug up three LONG AGO forgotten, obsure little regional meetings to TRY to say that it's declaration of it's own UNIQUE Canon YOU REJECT was correct. No one had heard of these.... they had not been mentioned for centuries.... Over the past 500 years, the singular Catholic Church has made lots of CLAIMS about this meetings but the substantiation is very lacking.

The Catholic Church NEVER had a singular canon... and NEVER did the Catholic Church agree with ANY other church on this issue. At the Council of Trent (a bit after Luther) it itself officially declared (in a binding way) the canon OF ITSELF. Unique... no other Christian group or church EVER agreed with that. And to TRY to substantiate that IT (alone!) had the right canon, it tried to look to history (but only of ITSELF) and developed a whole mythology about 3 lost, forgotten meetings. You echo them.

Let's look at these:

The Council of Leodicea. A diocese meeting, a synod, in 363 for the clergy in an area of Lydia and Phrygia. Although little is known for sure about this, it seems to have decided that "privately written psalms" are not to be in the Lectionary, but only the canonical books. Some claim those books were listed but that's disputed and seems unsubstantiated. No one outside that diocese mentioned this meeting, it seems none outside that area knew about it (and certainly didn't follow it).

The Council of Hippo. Also just a local synod, it was held in 393, this is even more obscure. But in the 16th Century, the Catholic Church claimed that it in some way affirmed the list of books that Athanasius wrote about.

The Third Council of Carthage. By far the best known of the 3 "forgotten" little regional meetings for one reason: Augustine participated and wrote about it. It resolves that nothing "beyond the canonical Scriptures" is to be read in the churches of that diocese. The issue was the LECTIONARY in that diocese, not some official declaration of what is and is not Scripture.

For centuries, there is little evidence that Christians of the East or West knew about these meetings - or cared - or followed their decisions. There were different acceptances of what is Scripture WELL into the Fifth Century and into the Eighth. The Apostolic C0onstitutions held to a very different set of books. It wasn't until 740 that we have evidence that Hebrews and the Revelation of John were universally accepted (athough in some cases NOT allowed in Lectionaries for several more centuries!). And of course, many Catholic tomes INCLUDED a 28th NT book, the Epistle to the Leodiceans (common in Luther's time). And to this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church as a DIFFERENT canon than any other.... the Greek Orthodox Church has a DIFFERENT canon than any other... the Syrian Orthodox Church has a DIFFERENT canon than any other... the Coptic Orthodox Church has a DIFFERNT canon than any other... the Anglican Church has a DIFFERENT canon than any other. IF your claim that one of these forgotten, obsure, regional synods DECLARED the canon in some final, definitive, offical way - then why didn't and don't anyone know that? Why have we not since then all had the SAME, IDENTICAL canon? In truth, few (if any) outside that area knew a thing about these meetings - for one simple reason, it didn't concern them. No, brother, there has been NO official, formal declaration of all Chritianity as to the canon. That's a Roman Catholic MYTH invented in the 16th Century to try to support the UNIQUE Canon of that one, singular denomination, a canon NONE other had EVER agreed with... one even the RCC often ignored (example: Epistle of the Leodiceans).





Now, back to your point: One of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.




And I WILL remember that you accept everything said in all 21 Councils and in every meeting of every diocese of the unique Roman Catholic Church - thus you accept these 3 synods. Or maybe you don't... and thus you quoting them authoritatively is just hypocritical because you don't accept the authority of all such RCC meetings.




- Josiah




.

 

[NathanH83]

All men are humans but not all humans are men. Consider that.


Brother, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of books contain history. Many of them record such accurately. Where is your proof that ergo they all are therefore The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be accepted as such by all Jews and Christian.

No one, brother, challenges that one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker contains history. Not even that that record is accurate. No one is challenging that there are books containing history among the billions and billions of books written. But brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.







There goes your argument that they accepted a book with "Maccabees" in the moniker as canonical. I don't doubt that in Jesus' day, some Jews READ some books and that at least some of the Maccabee books might have been among those books. But what I reject is your whole claim that they celebrated an event BECAUSE they accepted one of the books that mentions it as the CANONICAL words of God. If they didn't necessarily accept ANY book as canonical (as you now claim) how can you place your entire apologetic on the point that Jews and Christians accepted Second Maccabees as canonical? Brother, if 2 Maccabees was not canonical (Scripture) then how can you argue that an event it mentions was celebrated for the sole and only reason that all Jews accepted that book as canonical?

Brother, an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture), and it being mandated that all Jews and Christians so regard it.



Blessings on your Easter season....


Josiah




.

Honestly, since Daniel prophesies about the history that took place in Maccabees, then it actually doesn’t make sense to me as to why Maccabees shouldn’t belong in our Bibles. That literally makes no sense to me. And since multiple early church councils declared Maccabees to be scripture, then that further bolsters my point.

 

[pinacled]

Honestly, since Daniel prophesies about the history that took place in Maccabees, then it actually doesn’t make sense to me as to why Maccabees shouldn’t belong in our Bibles. That literally makes no sense to me. And since multiple early church councils declared Maccabees to be scripture, then that further bolsters my point.

I hope readers here are able to discern the difference between being present and celebrating.
Firstly,
Daniel is not considered a major prophet.
Nor is the vision given this man counted as prophecy.
Meaning that clarity is focused upon a fate of what is to come.
Secondly,
The account of daniel is what is defined as a wisdom scroll, or writing similar to psalms and proverbs

There are hints of salvation.
But direct references are hidden in the sod.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

I hope readers here are able to discern the difference between being present and celebrating.
Firstly,
Daniel is not considered a major prophet.
Nor is the vision given this man counted as prophecy.
Meaning that clarity is focused upon a fate of what is to come.
Secondly,
The account of daniel is what is defined as a wisdom scroll, or writing similar to psalms and proverbs

There are hints of salvation.
But direct references are hidden in the sod.
Winter plowing during a feast of dedication till elisha was greeted by ...?

Blessings Always