Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[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.

Blessings Always

The feast of dedication when Yeshua visited the temple is parallel to when eliyahu visited elisha.
When fire and oxen provided sustenance begining with Faith.
Fire light to wash and purify a winter snow.
"Plowing a field in winter"

12 oxen representing all of the tribes of yisrayl with a strength of forgiveness.

Blessings Always

 

[Andrew]

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





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?





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.




.

Josiah,
Canon isn't needed while scripture is yet in the process of growing, once in bloom they quickly begin blossoming and unfolding, revealing the fullness of the Word of God, then is it ripe for canon so to maintain the vitality of the core doctrine of scripture, the Gospel, where by we remain forever prosperous in the fullness of the Word of God keeping the faith of Christ who is called the branch, the first and the last.. the canon had already been announced before the Jews called it, in the Revelation of John, that if any one add or take away from this book the same shall take part in the plagues found therein.. It is finished
Note: John is referring to the prophetic nature of Holy Scripture from beginning to end as "the book". John wrote 7 letters to 7 churches individually but combined them into one long letter to be read in all the churches, the plagues prophesied in the "book" are found all throughout the Bible, some prophecies mentioned in Revelation are found throughout the Bible, common themes, characters, the voice from heaven calling out the words of Isaiah saying "come out of her my people be not takers of her sins", the devil and the woman with child parallels Genesis and the prophesy in Genesis, her seed with strike its head and the devil will strick its heel.. And the earth swallows the dragon, his third and final punishment, from heaven to earth and into the lake of fire.. Again the plagues contained in the book are describing the many plagues God has used throughout the bible, John is not specifically talking only of his 7 letters that contained the revelation of the outcome of the final days but on the spirit of prophesy made flesh which is Jesus, the book of life is synonymous with the Word of God, the Word is Christ is was the Word made flesh. Those who are found in Christ are the ones found in the book of life.. Plus this is Jesus' revelation TO John, not Johns revelation... Jesus canon includes all scripture from Genesis to Revelation including those "silent" 400 years in between the old and new testament which is part of the spirit of prophecy and of wraith and of resurrection and of leading the Jews out of bondage Greek and of course of cleansing the Temple..

A canon is like unto a saw used to cut off unwanted branches from a bountiful fruit bearing tree for maintaining its desired form, for if left abandoned it overgrows to the point when it's life giving waters can no longer reach the core and the tree dies.

 

[pinacled]

7 times 4

 

[pinacled]

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

Prayers during winter are are a scarlet cord

 

[pinacled]

He ia afraisd .

 

[pinacled]

The first mayor is?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah,
Canon isn't needed while scripture is yet in the process of growing, once in bloom they quickly begin blossoming and unfolding, revealing the fullness of the Word of God,

Andrew -


1. So, AGAIN, which is it? Do you claim the Jews had no canon (nothing embraced as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - ie Scripture) OR they did? You seem to be making both contradictory claims


2. AGAIN, where is it stated that there must be TWENTY-SEVEN books in the Christian New Testament (not 26 or 28)? And if that's stated somewhere, why were some books such as Hebrews and Revelation NOT in many collections well into the middle ages (making less than 27) and why for some 1000 years did many New Testaments have 28 books (with the Epistle to the Leodiceans being present)? And what in the world does that have to do with proving that 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 Maccabees should or should not be canonical among Christians? Are you insisting these 4 books replace 4 of our NT books so that they ARE Scripture but there's a divine mandate there be only 27 books in the NT?


3. And again, where is this "Four hundred years of silence" mandate that you speak of? I've never heard of any such requirement. And doesn't that mean that the 4 books known as Maccabees would not be Scripture?


4. And again, HOW (pray tell) does any of that substantiate the claim that Jews celebrate an event that is reported in many books (including one of the Maccabee ones) specifically BECAUSE all Jews regard those books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (equal to the Books of Moses) and ergo Christians must do so as well? 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 specifically BECAUSE they all (for over 2000 years) accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is The canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say the Five Books of Moses? Is it possible, brother, that people can celebrate some event WITHOUT them thereby being mandated to accept books that mention it to be the canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (divine Scripture)?



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[Origen]

So, AGAIN, which is it? Do you claim the Jews had no canon (nothing embraced as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - ie Scripture) OR they did? You seem to be making both contradictory claims

I was wondering that myself.

He clearly states in post 73:

The Jews made the first and ONLY canon of scripture in response to Christianity in the 1rst Century, that was their cut off

Then in post 76 I asked for him to provide 1st century primary sources to support that point but none have been given.

 

[Josiah]

multiple early church councils declared Maccabees to be scripture,

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 since you think we all must agree with every Catholic church meeting. I doubt you do... so I find that apologetic absurd since you yourself likely reject it.



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, obscure 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. 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



.

 

[Andrew]

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 since you think we all must agree with every Catholic church meeting. I doubt you do... so I find that apologetic absurd since you yourself likely reject it.



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, obscure 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. 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



.

Who declared the 66 books of the protestant bible as canon?

 

[Andrew]

I was wondering that myself.

He clearly states in post 73:

Then In post 76 I asked for him to provide 1st century primary sources to support that point but none have been given.

If it wasnt in Jamnia at the end of the 1rst century we have Rabbi Akiva having Aquila replace the Septuagint in the synagogues 2nd century with his greek.

 

[Origen]

If it wasnt in Jamnia at the end of the 1rst century we have Rabbi Akiva having Aquila replace the Septuagint in the synagogues 2nd century with his greek.

You claimed to have knowledge of an event. You stated:

"The Jews made the first and ONLY canon of scripture in response to Christianity in the 1rst Century, that was their cut off".

If such an event occurred as you have claimed concerning the canon, then there ought to be 1st or 2nd century sources by which one can verify your claim.

Do you know of any 1st or 2nd century sources that support your claim?

 

[Josiah]

Who declared the 66 books of the protestant bible as canon?

Andrew,


1. How does that answer any of the 4 questions I asked you? Namely

1. So, AGAIN, which is it? Do you claim the Jews had no canon (nothing embraced as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - ie Scripture) OR they did? You seem to be making both contradictory claims


2. AGAIN, where is it stated that there must be TWENTY-SEVEN books in the Christian New Testament (not 26 or 28)? And if that's stated somewhere, why were some books such as Hebrews and Revelation NOT in many collections well into the middle ages (making less than 27) and why for some 1000 years did many New Testaments have 28 books (with the Epistle to the Leodiceans being present)? And what in the world does that have to do with proving that 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 Maccabees should or should not be canonical among Christians? Are you insisting these 4 books replace 4 of our NT books so that they ARE Scripture but there's a divine mandate there be only 27 books in the NT?


3. And again, where is this "Four hundred years of silence" mandate that you speak of? I've never heard of any such requirement. And doesn't that mean that the 4 books known as Maccabees would not be Scripture?


4. And again, HOW (pray tell) does any of that substantiate the claim that Jews celebrate an event that is reported in many books (including one of the Maccabee ones) specifically BECAUSE all Jews regard those books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (equal to the Books of Moses) and ergo Christians must do so as well? 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 specifically BECAUSE they all (for over 2000 years) accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is The canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say the Five Books of Moses? Is it possible, brother, that people can celebrate some event WITHOUT them thereby being mandated to accept books that mention it to be the canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (divine Scripture)?



2. How does that question prove that Jews to this day celebrate an event recorded in many books (including one with "Maccabees" in the moniker) specifically BECAUSE they accepted that book in their canon as The inerrant, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) but you claim they didn't have a canon?




But to answer your (seemingly irrelevant) question: No one. And, brother, who told you there were 66 books in the Protestant Canon????? WHICH Protestant canon? The Anglican one as defined in the Thirty Nine Articles? Luther's translation? The Westerminister Confession? WHICH? And WHO could declare that "PROTESTANT canon?" Who is or has been THE singualar all-authoritative Pope of all Protestantism who could officially declare such a thing, name that person ALL Protantants everywhere for the past 500 years have recognized as our pan-protestant infallible/authortative Pope? And WHAT group is recognized by every Protestant as inerrant and authoritative to all? WHO or WHAT could declare this universal, pan-Protestant Canon (thus making the Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism and the Westminister Confession of the Reformed ergo heretical and unnecessary)? Brother, WHO or WHAT would you expect to officially declare the Canon for all Protestantism?

Brother, NONE and NO ONE officially declared anything in this regard for all Christianity. 3 or 4 very obscure, regional synods declared what could and could not be read during the Mass Lectionary IN THAT diocese..... long forgotten meetings of no relevance outside that small area. And in the 16th Century, THREE denominations did this for it itself (not all Christianity). The Catholic Church declared the RCC Canon in the 16th Century, a unique canon NO OTHER accepts. The Anglican Church declared the Anglican Canon in the 16 Century (one of the 39 Articles) - a unique canon NO OTHER accepts. The Reformed Church declared the Reformed Canon in the 16th Century (part of the Westminister Confession). But friend, there has never been an official, authoritative declaration of some binding PAN-PROTESTANT group or person - for one very, very simple reason, my brother, none exists to do that. Never has. Still isn't.

Now Nathan wants to docilicly accept every statement of every Roman Catholic meeting. And he can do that... but I doubt he does. He says we should all abide by them but I doubt he takes his own advice. We'll see if he accepts every word of all 21 Councils of the RCC, not to mention the literally thousands of other declarations of some diocese of the RCC. IF he does, then I understand his point - the meetings he mentions are binding on him. But I don't think he accepts his own point.



Now, let's end the de-railing and diversions.... and address the point: Where is the substantiation for the claim, namely, that the Jews celebrate an event (as does my college friend, David) specifically BECAUSE Jews accept one of the Maccabee books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and thus Christians must do so, too?



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[NathanH83]

Andrew,


1. How does that answer any of the 4 questions I asked you? Namely

1. So, AGAIN, which is it? Do you claim the Jews had no canon (nothing embraced as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - ie Scripture) OR they did? You seem to be making both contradictory claims


2. AGAIN, where is it stated that there must be TWENTY-SEVEN books in the Christian New Testament (not 26 or 28)? And if that's stated somewhere, why were some books such as Hebrews and Revelation NOT in many collections well into the middle ages (making less than 27) and why for some 1000 years did many New Testaments have 28 books (with the Epistle to the Leodiceans being present)? And what in the world does that have to do with proving that 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 Maccabees should or should not be canonical among Christians? Are you insisting these 4 books replace 4 of our NT books so that they ARE Scripture but there's a divine mandate there be only 27 books in the NT?


3. And again, where is this "Four hundred years of silence" mandate that you speak of? I've never heard of any such requirement. And doesn't that mean that the 4 books known as Maccabees would not be Scripture?


4. And again, HOW (pray tell) does any of that substantiate the claim that Jews celebrate an event that is reported in many books (including one of the Maccabee ones) specifically BECAUSE all Jews regard those books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (equal to the Books of Moses) and ergo Christians must do so as well? 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 specifically BECAUSE they all (for over 2000 years) accept that one of the four books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is The canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say the Five Books of Moses? Is it possible, brother, that people can celebrate some event WITHOUT them thereby being mandated to accept books that mention it to be the canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (divine Scripture)?



2. How does that question prove that Jews to this day celebrate an event recorded in many books (including one with "Maccabees" in the moniker) specifically BECAUSE they accepted that book in their canon as The inerrant, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)?




But to answer your (seemingly irrelevant) question: No one. And, brother, who told you there were 66 books in the Protestant Canon????? WHICH Protestant canon? The Anglican one as defined in the Thirty Nine Articles? Luther's translation? The Westerminister Confession? WHICH? And WHO would declare that "PROTESTANT canon?" Who is or has been THE singualar all-authoritative Pope of all Protestantism who could officially declare such a thing, name that person ALL Protantants everywhere for the past 500 years have recognized as our pan-protestant infallible/authortative Pope? And WHAT group is recognized by every Protestant as inerrant and authoritative to all? WHO or WHAT could declare this universal, pan-Protestant Canon (thus making the Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism and the Westminister Confession of the Reformed ergo heretical and unnecessary)? Brother, WHO or WHAT would you expect to officially declare the Canon for all Protestantism?

Brother, NONE and NO ONE officially declared anything in this regard for all Christianity. 3 or 4 very obscure, regional synods declared what could and could not be read during the Mass Lectionary IN THAT diocese..... long forgotten meetings of no relevance outside that small area. And in the 16th Century, THREE denominations did this for it itself (not all Christianity). The Catholic Church declared the RCC Canon in the 16th Century, a unique canon NO OTHER accepts. The Anglican Church declared the Anglican Canon in the 16 Century (one of the 39 Articles) - a unique canon NO OTHER accepts. The Reformed Church declared the Reformed Canon in the 16th Century (part of the Westminister Confession). But friend, there has never been an official, authoritative declaration of some binding PAN-PROTESTANT group or person - for one very, very simple reason, my brother, none exists to do that. Never has. Still isn't.

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted Maccabees as scripture. That’s why they included it in the Greek Septuagint. And because the Septuagint included it, that’s why the early Christians accepted it. But after the time of Christ, the unbelieving Jews took it out. They wanted to discredit the New Testament by saying that there’s no prophets after Ezra, and therefore no scripture after Ezra. This was their way of saying that Jesus and John the Baptist were not prophets, and that the New Testament is not scripture. But in order to stick to that doctrine, then they had to remove Maccabees from the Bible, since it came after Ezra.

 

[Josiah]

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted Maccabees as scripture.

Prove it.

NO Jew today does.... but they nearly all celebrate the event you mention. SO, if the Jews in the First Century celebrated it specifically BECAUSE it had been officially declared as canonical (and you need to quote that declaration of that Jewish ruling body), then why do Jews today celebrate it? If it's impossible to celebrate an event UNLESS one of the sources about that event is The canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) then why do Jews TODAY celebrate the very event of which you speak?

And brother, just because a book is read doesn't make it canonical Scripture (look at the New York Times best-seller list)

And brother, just because a book is translated doesn't make it canonical Scripture (Luther's Catechism has been translated into nearly 100 languages).

And brother, just because a book contains history... even accurate history.... even concerning Israel and/or Jews... doesn't make it canonical Scripture.


You need to QUOTE some binding, authoriative body of all Judaism officially declaring one or more of the 4 Maccabee books AS SCRIPTURE - canonical, inerrent, divinely-inscripturated words of God. And the FIRST SUCH MEETING EVER in the history of Judaism didn't happen until 90 AD at Jamnia - and even that is challenged, it may not have been recognized as authoritative at the time. Origen keeps asking you for the declaration of such a ruling body... and you keep ignoring it.. and we all know why. You have nothing. Nothing to substantiate your claim. Nothing at all. It's obvious.




.

 

[Origen]

Prove it.

I would like to see that as well.

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted Maccabees as scripture.

Please cite one source from before the time of Christ which states Maccabees is Scripture.

That’s why they included it in the Greek Septuagint.

Please provide manuscript evidence from before the time of Christ proving it was part of the original LXX or a source from before the time of Christ which states it was part of the original LXX.

 

[NathanH83]

I would like to see that as well.


Please cite one source from before the time of Christ which states Maccabees is Scripture.


Please provide manuscript evidence from before the time of Christ proving it was part of the original LXX or a source from before the time of Christ which states it was part of the original LXX.

The Jews themselves admit it on their own website. At MyJewishLearning.com they admit that 1 Maccabees was in Hebrew originally, and that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD is when the decision was made to exclude it, and they don’t know why. They say so on their own websites.

Besides, it’s the only logical explanation as to why the early Christians accepted Maccabees, and why ancient copies of the Septuagint included Maccabees.

Maccabees is Jewish history. It wasn’t made up by the Christians. It makes no sense that Christians would add that.

Common sense. Think.

 

[Origen]

The Jews themselves admit it on their own website. At MyJewishLearning.com they admit that 1 Maccabees was in Hebrew originally, and that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD is when the decision was made to exclude it, and they don’t know why. They say so on their own websites.

Besides, it’s the only logical explanation as to why the early Christians accepted Maccabees, and why ancient copies of the Septuagint included Maccabees.

Maccabees is Jewish history. It wasn’t made up by the Christians. It makes no sense that Christians would add that.

Common sense. Think.

Unless they provide primary sources to support your claims, I find no reason to accept their claims.

You stated:

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted Maccabees as scripture.

Can you cite one source from before the time of Christ which states Maccabees is Scripture?

You also stated:

That’s why they included it in the Greek Septuagint. And because the Septuagint included it

Can you provide manuscript evidence from before the time of Christ proving it was part of the original LXX or a source from before the time of Christ which states it was part of the original LXX?

Common sense. Think.

I doubt you would simply accept something I said without evidence to support my point, and since I am thinking I find no reason to do the same. Either there is evidence from before the time of Christ to support your claims or there is not.

Can you provide any primary sources from before the time of Christ to support your claims?

 

[Josiah]

The Jews themselves admit it on their own website. At MyJewishLearning.com they admit that 1 Maccabees was in Hebrew originally, and that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD is when the decision was made to exclude it, and they don’t know why. They say so on their own websites.

I didn't know that 21st Century Websites ran by some Jews are in fact The Jewish Ruling Body for all Jews.... and that it was so in the First Century.

early Christians accepted Maccabees

Still waiting for the proof of that. You need to quote some singular ruling body of all Christians that officially declared that First Maccabees is canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). Just name that official, authoritative, binding body.... and then quote the declaration (please include the place and date of that).

Maccabees is Jewish history.

Yes. First Maccabees is one of millions of books that contain Jewish history. Now where is your proof that books with Jewish history in them are THEREFORE the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) for both Jews and Christians? Where is your proof? Where is your proof that Jews celebrate this event BECAUSE they accept one of the books with Maccabees in the moniker as canonical Scripture?




.

 

[pinacled]

The Jews themselves admit it on their own website. At MyJewishLearning.com they admit that 1 Maccabees was in Hebrew originally, and that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD is when the decision was made to exclude it, and they don’t know why. They say so on their own websites.

Besides, it’s the only logical explanation as to why the early Christians accepted Maccabees, and why ancient copies of the Septuagint included Maccabees.

Maccabees is Jewish history. It wasn’t made up by the Christians. It makes no sense that Christians would add that.

Common sense. Think.

A link and citation please