Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Andrew]

The only thing to get straight is whether you are able to support your claims.

Let's remind everyone what you claimed. You stated:


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

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 as you claimed?

Are you claiming..
that the early Christians who learned OT scripture from the greek translation known as the septuagint and who used the books of the Septuagint in the churches (and eventually made it into the BIBLE).. didn't consider all of the books scripture but allowed them into the church anyway, quoting from them over 300+ times...
....did not actually do any of these things and never used them as scripturw, even though its exactly how those books ended up in Christians Bibles?

Can you cite sources that state that no Christian during the pre nicine era had ever considered all of the books that made it into our Bible as scripture? (which include "those books")

And can you offer an explanation to why the books that were known to Christians to be uninspired, were brought into the church and into our Bibles?

 

[pinacled]

Are you claiming..
that the early Christians who learned OT scripture from the greek translation known as the septuagint and who used the books of the Septuagint in the churches (and eventually made it into the BIBLE).. didn't consider all of the books scripture but allowed them into the church anyway, quoting from them over 300+ times...
....did not actually do any of these things and never used them as scripturw, even though its exactly how those books ended up in Christians Bibles?

Can you cite sources that state that no Christian during the pre nicine era had ever considered all of the books that made it into our Bible as scripture? (which include "those books")

And can you offer an explanation to why the books that were known to Christians to be uninspired, were brought into the church and into our Bibles?

Your desperation is a stagnant attempt at envy that reveals a lack of humility for Truth...

 

[pinacled]

Are you claiming..
that the early Christians who learned OT scripture from the greek translation known as the septuagint and who used the books of the Septuagint in the churches (and eventually made it into the BIBLE).. didn't consider all of the books scripture but allowed them into the church anyway, quoting from them over 300+ times...
....did not actually do any of these things and never used them as scripturw, even though its exactly how those books ended up in Christians Bibles?

Can you cite sources that state that no Christian during the pre nicine era had ever considered all of the books that made it into our Bible as scripture? (which include "those books")

And can you offer an explanation to why the books that were known to Christians to be uninspired, were brought into the church and into our Bibles?

If I recall correctly you attacked the catholic denomination in the past?

If so, why then do you claim "our bibles"

 

[Origen]

Are you claiming

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.

Can you cite sources that state that no Christian during the pre nicine era had ever considered all of the books that made it into our Bible as scripture? (which include "those books")

The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

 

[pinacled]

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.


The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

There is no such thing as "church fathers"
Nor a greek fraternity where secrets are held till released to the initiated.

Only the occult hold such a claim.

Do you Understand

 

[pinacled]

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.


The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

Glad you understoid.

 

[pinacled]

Garments that beckon unraveling are likened to a sweater of thoughtlessness.

Though gentle and warming for a season they'll lose there use with time.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

Are you claiming..
that the early Christians who learned OT scripture from the greek translation known as the septuagint and who used the books of the Septuagint in the churches (and eventually made it into the BIBLE).. didn't consider all of the books scripture but allowed them into the church anyway, quoting from them over 300+ times...
....did not actually do any of these things and never used them as scripturw, even though its exactly how those books ended up in Christians Bibles?

Can you cite sources that state that no Christian during the pre nicine era had ever considered all of the books that made it into our Bible as scripture? (which include "those books")

And can you offer an explanation to why the books that were known to Christians to be uninspired, were brought into the church and into our Bibles?

Are you claiming to support the catholic denom?

 

[pinacled]

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.


The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

Take note of Andrews silence to my que

 

[pinacled]

Maccabees wasn’t authored by Christians. The Catholic church didn’t make it up. It was authored by Jews who lived before Christ, and it fulfills the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11.

Why don’t YOU provide the evidence that Maccabees was written after the time of Christ, since that’s what you’re suggesting.

Incorrect.
The book(s) of maccabees was scribed by a greek.

Hence "lying pen of a scribe."

Jeremiah 8

 

[pinacled]

In maccabees there is mention of worship on a certain mount where a golden calf is formed..
A mount where laws aren't written on the heart.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

Picture taken from John 10:22 in the original 1611 King James.
The Feast of Dedication is the Feast of Hanukkah, as shown in this marginal note.

Jesus celebrated the Maccabees?

But they told me that the New Testament never acknowledges the Apocrypha.

???????

The original 1611 kjv did not contain notations !

The photo copy you represented is likely from a publishing company established around 1988
A company you work for and promote..

 

[pinacled]

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.


The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

Nathan is retaliating against this forums rules founded against being bought by advertisers.

Hence Andrew the mod attempting to undermine such a rule and support a bribe

 

[NathanH83]

I didn't claim anything in that post. I ask for him to support his claim with evidence from primary sources just as I did with you.


The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

That’s really dishonest, man.
The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were COUNCILS.

Jerome and Athanasius voiced their opinion that these books don’t belong since the Jews don’t accept them. These church fathers were INDIVIDUALS with their own individual opinions. They were not church councils. They were just individuals. And the church councils trumped their false opinions.

After those councils took place, Jerome changed his stance, included them in the Bible, and explained that he accepts them as scripture, but was just saying that the Jews reject them.

Now, you DO believe that the Jews who lived before the time of Christ rejected Maccabees as scripture, right?

But you haven’t shown any evidence of that. In other conversations I’ve had, the only thing anyone has ever shown me is Josephus...an unbeliever who lived after Christ.

As for my claim that the Apostles accepted Maccabees, you say my claim is false. But wasn’t Hebrews written by an Apostle? Some say Paul wrote it. Some say Barnabas, some say Luke. Either way, we accept Hebrews as scripture.

Some early church fathers rejected Hebrews as scripture, and they voiced their opinion about it. But we accept Hebrews as scripture because EARLY CHURCH COUNCILS SAID SO!

And the author of Hebrews includes the Maccabean martyrs in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11:35. He also references Tobit in Hebrews 13:2.

This is very clear evidence that the Apostle who wrote Hebrews accepts Maccabees as scripture......which would explain why multiple EARLY CHURCH COUNCILS DECLARED IT TO BE SCRIPTURE!

You ask for evidence for claims, and completely ignore the very church councils which DECIDED YOUR NEW TESTAMENT!!

They decided your New Testament, but you ignore their decision on the Old Testament????

That’s inconsistent, bro.

 

[NathanH83]

The Protestant church is the faith that places its faith in those who don’t have faith.

We worship the unbelieving Jews, we practically idolize Israel, and we rip books out of our Bibles because the rabbis told us to.

 

[NathanH83]

When the King James Bible was published in 1611, it included Maccabees within its pages. And it was still called “The Good Book.”

Now why’d we have to go and rip that out? Come on now. Don’t be doing that to The Good Book. God is watching.

 

[pinacled]

The Protestant church is the faith that places its faith in those who don’t have faith.

We worship the unbelieving Jews, we practically idolize Israel, and we rip books out of our Bibles because the rabbis told us to.

We is code for bribe

 

[Origen]

That’s really dishonest, man.
The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were COUNCILS.

Nothing dishonest about it. The fact is some church fathers believe them to be Scripture and others did not.

 

[Origen]

double

 

[Josiah]

I believe the early church (believers)

We're still waiting for some authoritative, pan-Christian, ecumenical ruling before 300 that officially/formally stated: "One of the books with 'Maccabees' in the moniker is hereby declared to be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God." Not some obscure regional/diocese synod or council but a pan-Christian ecumenical authorative statement. Don't parrot the mythology of the RCC invented in the 16th Century about the Council of Hippo or Carthage - they were not ecumenical or binding, they were very obscure (and still largely unknown) tiny meetings of western dioceses focused on the lectionary and they determined nothing, not even for that diocese.

Since you have nothing official for all Christianity ... since as we all know NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils dealt with this issue.... you have NOTHING to support your claim of what "early Christianity" DID or did not do in this regard. Now, you can claim that all Christians believed something... but you've offered NOTHING to support that, either. Can you list for us at least 5 (just 5) five Christians before the year 100 AD who clearly stated that they (in their own personal, fallible, individual OPINION) embrace one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? I'm ONLY asking for 5 - not every Christian. NOT if they read any such book (because people read lots of books), not if they regard such as good history (because there are millions of good history books), not if they quoted from the book (because Christians quote from MANY books - most you don't accept) but stated that in their own personal, individual, fairly-worthless opinion, one of those books is CANONICAL. I don't think you can find even one, not one. And thus we will learn your claim is.... well.... like most of your claims.

and you believe the Jews (unbelievers).

Was it you that gave a mysterious, unidentified, personal website ran by JEWS as your primary source? Demanding we believe those Jews?

You don’t have any primary sources from before the time of Christ, where a Jewish person claimed that Maccabees is “just history” and not holy scripture.

And you don't have even ONE unbelieving Jewish person (whom you insist we cannot believe anyway) who states that in their own fairly-worthless personal opinion, one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker is CANONICAL Scripture. 4

And you don't have even ONE believing Christian before 100 AD (or even 300 !!!) who shares their own fairly-worthless personal opinion of the same.

What you have is a mysterious, unidentified personal website of JEWS that evidently agrees with you, but you insist we don't accept what Jews say as true. And few accept that a personal website in the year 2021 is a primary source from the First Century.

When the King James Bible was published in 1611, it included Maccabees within its pages.

NOT as Scripture! The Anglican Church, in it's totally unque canon, has two distinctive levels - Scripture and Apocrypha, the later being good for reading and inspiration, but not normative... a distinctively LOWER level. Luther did much the same thing, although with fewer books. It's a question of STATUS.... for the Anglican Church, there is much emphasis on this distinction (which of course you must evade).




To the point: WHERE (at long, long last) is your proof that Jews (including my friend David) celebrate an event because all Jews have always accepted one of the Maccabee books as CANON, as the inerrant and divinely-inscripturated words of God equal to the Five Books of Moses? Where is your proof of that?




.