Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Josiah]

The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were COUNCILS.

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.


Are you a docilic Roman Catholic? If not, then why do you docilicly submit to these meetings (that virtually no Christian had heard of until the RCC invented a whole mythology about them in the 16th Century)? Do you docilically submit to all Catholic meetings or just these 3?



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







.

 

[Josiah]

As for my claim that the Apostles accepted Maccabees

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate that claim.
Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Not one word from even one Apostle.
Nothing.

Just page after page.... post after post... thread after thread since you came here. Claiming absurd things.... substantiating NONE of it.


- Josiah



.

 

[NathanH83]

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

The church councils declared them to be scripture, and ZERO church councils said they’re not.
An individual’s opinion is just that...an opinion.
Arius also had opinions. Some church fathers had opinions that Mary was not really a virgin when Jesus was born.
An OPINION is not a church council.

 

[NathanH83]

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.





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








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.






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?




.

The author of Hebrews included Maccabees in the hall of faith. That’s clear evidence right there.
and thanks for acknowledging that you have ZERO evidence of Jews who lived before Christ that rejected Maccabees.

 

[Origen]

The church councils declared them to be scripture, and ZERO church councils said they’re not.
An individual’s opinion is just that...an opinion.
An OPINION is not a church council.

Even if you were correct that does nothing to change what I said.

 

[Josiah]

The church councils declared them to be scripture,

Nope. See post 141


IF you docilically accepted every decision of every diocese of the Roman Catholic Church - no matter how obscure, then I could understand why you would docilically accept the mythology that denomination gave to these tiny, long-forgotten, non-binding decisions. But if you don't, then there goes your apologetic.

An individual’s opinion is just that...an opinion. Arius also had opinions. Some church fathers had opinions that Mary was not really a virgin when Jesus was born.

And you've not even presented that.

Sure, you have a JEWISH personal website but you insist we're not to believe unbelievers... and a personal website is not a reliable source.

The author of Hebrews included Maccabees in the hall of faith.

An outright falsehood as anyone who can read knows. Anyone with a Bible can see the word "Maccabees" never once appears in Hebrews. Your claim is simply an out-right falsehood.



Your list of incredible claims that either are OBVIOUS, undeniable falsehoods or entirely, completely unsubstantiated just gets longer and longer and longer.




.

.

 

[NathanH83]

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

When you say “others did not”....were those “others” an ecumenical church council?

You say that these church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were “just local councils” and therefore don’t have the authority to make a decision for all Christians, since they were not an ecumenical (worldwide) church council.

Oh, ok. So these local councils don’t have that authority.

And YOU DO?

You have the authority of an ecumenical church council to make this decision for all Christians?

Oh, I’m sorry, the unbelieving Jews do?

So, the unbelieving Jews have the authority to make this decision for all of Christianity, and have the authority of an ecumenical church council?

The unbelievers have more authority than the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage?

When American Bible societies decided to remove the Apocryphal section from the King James in 1885, causing all Bible translations from that point forward to remove that section, did they have the authority of an ecumenical church council? Did they have the authority to make that decision for all of Christianity?

 

[Andrew]

Jews who rejected Christ have proven so by not accepting Gospel as their scripture, they cut off the prophet of God, their Messiah and the Father from their canon, so it makes perfect since for us to accept their premature canon of rejection and use it to replace the uncut traditional canon of scriptures passed down from the first Christians.

you probably all sit here with your big theological brains thinking to yourself

"how illogical of these two for defending those unlearned neanderthal minded Christian simpletons of antiquity who knew no better, if they really thought they knew more than the learned rabbis then how sad, God bless their hearts"

don't you?

 

[NathanH83]

Jews who rejected Christ have proven so by not accepting Gospel as their scripture, they cut off the prophet of God, their Messiah and the Father from their canon, so it makes perfect since for us to accept their premature canon of rejection and use it to replace the uncut traditional canon of scriptures passed down from the first Christians.

you probably all sit here with your big theological brains thinking to yourself

"how illogical of these two for defending those unlearned neanderthal minded Christian simpletons of antiquity who knew no better, if they really thought they knew more than the learned rabbis then how sad, God bless their hearts"

don't you?

All the early Christians were just a bunch of Neanderthals who didn’t know any better. Our modern-day Christianity has the ecumenical authority to remove books from the Bible. We have the authority to make that decision for all of Christianity. Why? Because we said so. That’s why. Why else?

 

[Origen]

You say that these church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were “just local councils” and therefore don’t have the authority to make a decision for all Christians, since they were not an ecumenical (worldwide) church council.

What in the world are you talking about? I NEVER made any claim like that.

 

[NathanH83]

What in the world are you talking about? I NEVER made any claim like that.

Well, that’s the claim I’ve heard a million times from people like you.
So what is your reason then to reject the decisions of these early church councils?

 

[NathanH83]

What in the world are you talking about? I NEVER made any claim like that.

Actually, I think maybe Josiah said it on this thread.

 

[NathanH83]

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.


Are you a docilic Roman Catholic? If not, then why do you docilicly submit to these meetings (that virtually no Christian had heard of until the RCC invented a whole mythology about them in the 16th Century)? Do you docilically submit to all Catholic meetings or just these 3?



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







.

You have the authority to take books out of the Bible? The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage don’t have the authority to declare which books belong. But you do?

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Josiah]

You have the authority to take books out of the Bible?

Nope (do you actually READ things, you know, words on a page?)

I have NO authority to add or delete ANYTHING or to speak for all Christianity - in an authoritative, binding way or in any other way. NOR DO YOU! Nor does any ECF. Or any Pope. Or any denomination. Or any website. Or any local synod of the Catholic Church. Or Martin Luther or John Calvin. And certainly not you.


Now, why the persistent dodge? Why the constant evasions? You make all these strange personal CLAIMS - over and over and over and over and over - some outright falsehoods ("Hebrews mentions Maccabees as heros") and many as just entirely, wholly unsubstantiation (Jews celebrate an event because they all accept the at least some of the Maccabee books are canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - Scripture") And when you are faced with a clear, undeniable falsehood - you just don't care and you just ignore it.... and when you are asked for substantiation, you just evade it and move to something else (it's called "The Shell Game" in debate).

The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage don’t have the authority to declare which books belong.

IF you are a docilic Roman Catholic and a member of the one of those three dioceses of the Catholic Church and live in the Fourth Century.... then they might for YOU. I will be looking to see if you accept everything from all 21 Councils of the RCC and from the thousands of diocese decisions (like the 3 you mentioned), if not, then there goes that apologetic - there's no reason for us to do what you won't do.




To the point of this thread: WHERE (pray tell!!) is your proof that Jews celebrate an event specifically BECAUSE they all accept at least one of the 4 Maccabee books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)? How many pages of posts are required before you offer SOMETHING that substantiates your claim? How long will you keep us waiting? Or realize what we all do: You have nothing. Nothing for this thread, nothing for any of your threads. Several of your threads (most related to this issue) "die" because we all just tire of waiting for you to do something other than just CLAIM stuff with NOTHING to support it.





.

 

[NathanH83]

Nope (do you actually READ things, you know, words on a page?)

I have NO authority to add or delete ANYTHING or to speak for all Christianity - in an authoritative, binding way or in any other way. NOR DO YOU! Nor does any ECF. Or any Pope. Or any denomination. Or any website. Or any local synod of the Catholic Church. Or Martin Luther or John Calvin. And certainly not you.


Now, why the persistent dodge? Why the constant evasions? You make all these strange personal CLAIMS - over and over and over and over and over - some outright falsehoods ("Hebrews mentions Maccabees as heros") and many as just entirely, wholly unsubstantiation (Jews celebrate an event because they all accept the at least some of the Maccabee books are canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - Scripture") And when you are faced with a clear, undeniable falsehood - you just don't care and you just ignore it.... and when you are asked for substantiation, you just evade it and move to something else (it's called "The Shell Game" in debate).







IF you are a docilic Roman Catholic and a member of the one of those three dioceses of the Catholic Church and live in the Fourth Century.... then they might for YOU. I will be looking to see if you accept everything from all 21 Councils of the RCC and from the thousands of diocese decisions (like the 3 you mentioned), if not, then there goes that apologetic - there's no reason for us to do what you won't do.




To the point of this thread: WHERE (pray tell!!) is your proof that Jews celebrate an event specifically BECAUSE they all accept at least one of the 4 Maccabee books as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)? How many pages of posts are required before you offer SOMETHING that substantiates your claim? How long will you keep us waiting? Or realize what we all do: You have nothing. Nothing for this thread, nothing for any of your threads. Several of your threads (most related to this issue) "die" because we all just tire of waiting for you to do something other than just CLAIM stuff with NOTHING to support it.





.

If you don’t have the authority to remove these books, then why should I accept your claim that they don’t belong, especially when your claim contradicts the decisions made by early church councils?

What makes you right and them wrong?

 

[pinacled]

[ He went off again beyond the Yarden, where Yochanan had been immersing at first, and stayed there. 41 Many people came to him and said, “Yochanan performed no miracles, but everything Yochanan said about this man was true.” 42 And many people there put their trust in him.]

East of the temple, closing the gate after which.

Yeshua leaving after having his life threatened is far from celebration far as I can see.
Hence his absence after visiting the temple for a day that was very likely a shabbat considering The Lords usual visits on other occasions.
The festival of lights occur or begin at times on a shabbat according to the jewish calendar.
2026 is a future example.

Blessed be The Holy One.

25 Bible verses about On The Sabbath

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

 

[pinacled]

[ He went off again beyond the Yarden, where Yochanan had been immersing at first, and stayed there. 41 Many people came to him and said, “Yochanan performed no miracles, but everything Yochanan said about this man was true.” 42 And many people there put their trust in him.]

East of the temple, closing the gate after which.

Yeshua leaving after having his life threatened is far from celebration far as I can see.
Hence his absence after visiting the temple for a day that was very likely a shabbat considering The Lords usual visits on other occasions.
The festival of lights occur or begin at times on a shabbat according to the jewish calendar.
2026 is a future example.

Blessed be The Holy One.

25 Bible verses about On The Sabbath

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

I wonder how many yammin(days) does it take to travel east from the temple to the yarden(jordan) river ?

Shabbat Shalom

 

[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.

???????

Do you know how many candles are lit on the first and second day of Chanukah?

 

[pinacled]

If you don’t have the authority to remove these books, then why should I accept your claim that they don’t belong, especially when your claim contradicts the decisions made by early church councils?

What makes you right and them wrong?

I have the authority given by The Holy One.

Answer my que