Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[pinacled]

Your fear is apparent

 

[pinacled]

When the Lord of lights numbered the southern steps as the face of man .

Those within the temple forgot the chariot vision given yecheskel.

They forgot the Torah and how many steps are involved to sanctify.

21 plus 24 before water and fire.

The first alter

 

[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?

Can you count youngin?

 

[pinacled]

You’re not making sense. Nobody here is talking about a wedding. You’re wasting people’s time. If you have nothing sensible to say, then please don’t bother responding.

I have tattoos on my knees and left arm

 

[Josiah]

why should I accept your claim that they don’t belong

Do you actually READ posts? Do you pay any attention WHATSOEVER to the words? Do you even notice them?

I said - repeatedly, clearly, literally, verbatim, in real black and white words - that I do NOT claim to have ANY authority to add or delete ANYTHING from any tome or collection. NOR DO YOU. Nor does any Catholic pope or Early Church Father or any denomination gathering of the RCC or any other, nor Martin Luther or John Calvin, nor any meeting of any diocese or any synod.... and NOT YOU.


Brother, NO pan-Christian "council" has decided ANYTHING in this regard, didn't even voice an opinion or question regarding it. There have been 4-7 such meetings in history and NONE of them even mentioned a word about what is and is not canonical.


Now, you seem to be confused by the word "council" and you seem to have this weird, incredible, very silly idea that if the word "council" is used, it MUST be pan-Christians (Ecumenical) and must be binding and authoritative on all believers. Friend, every month, on the first Tuesday of the month, my little parish has a "CHURCH COUNCIL" meeting. It's called a "CHURCH COUNCIL." Like million of other churches, we have a CHURCH COUNCIL meeting every month. We call it our CHURCH COUNCIL. Last month, we decided to get a new photocopier. Now, your absurd, beyond laughable, "logic" is THEREFORE every congregation until Jesus returns is mandated to get a new photocopier. How absurd! Friend, "council" just means "meeting." "Church council" just means a meeting of a church. You forget to ask, "WHICH church?" Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is pan-Christian. Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is made up of all Christian (or all bishops), Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is binding on all Christians for all times. Brother. there was a church council to buy a new photocopier.... are you therefore buying a new photocopier?


These were tiny, REGIONAL synods, each of a given, individual, WESTERN, Latin, diocese. NOT pan-Christian, NOT ecumenical. And you don't accept them! You are not Catholic! Since you yourself don't accept the thousands upon thousands of Catholic meetings as BINDING on YOU, why do you insist everyone else accepts them as inerrant and binding.... everyone BUT YOU?



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). You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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. You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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. You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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.




.

 

[Bluezone777]

I doubt Jesus was celebrating the feast of dedication. It looks to me John 10:22 is just setting the stage for the scene in which Jesus and a group of unnamed Jews have a conversation that ultimately turns hostile and ends with Jesus slipping away from them. There is no real reason one should look at the verse as Jesus supporting the celebration as nothing he did in that passage had anything to do with a celebration of any kind. He could have had that conversation at anytime and it still would have fit with or without the celebration going on.

I would also say a margin note in a 16th century copy isn't really proving anything either as it is too far away from the original to mean anything. It would be one thing if the proof was dated closer to the time of the book being written. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe this footnote was just added in by someone from the 16th period trying to convince people of their day that Macabees is scripture much like Nathan is doing right now. That's my take on it.

 

[Andrew]

I doubt Jesus was celebrating the feast of dedication. It looks to me John 10:22 is just setting the stage for the scene in which Jesus and a group of unnamed Jews have a conversation that ultimately turns hostile and ends with Jesus slipping away from them. There is no real reason one should look at the verse as Jesus supporting the celebration as nothing he did in that passage had anything to do with a celebration of any kind. He could have had that conversation at anytime and it still would have fit with or without the celebration going on.

I would also say a margin note in a 16th century copy isn't really proving anything either as it is too far away from the original to mean anything. It would be one thing if the proof was dated closer to the time of the book being written. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe this footnote was just added in by someone from the 16th period trying to convince people of their day that Macabees is scripture much like Nathan is doing right now. That's my take on it.

It mentions two feast and during that time Jesus stays in Jerusalem preaching in the Temple, Jews would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to the Temple during the two feasts because it symbolized God taking them out of Egypt and leading them to the promised land as they followed the LIGHT. Now they don't have a Temple, the significance is Jesus says during that time that HE is the light and the Jews who attempted to stone him foreshadows the Temple being destroyed and the unbelieving Jews to this day expect a 3rd Temple that will never happen because Jesus is the 3rd Temple and they reject Him

 

[NathanH83]

I doubt Jesus was celebrating the feast of dedication. It looks to me John 10:22 is just setting the stage for the scene in which Jesus and a group of unnamed Jews have a conversation that ultimately turns hostile and ends with Jesus slipping away from them. There is no real reason one should look at the verse as Jesus supporting the celebration as nothing he did in that passage had anything to do with a celebration of any kind. He could have had that conversation at anytime and it still would have fit with or without the celebration going on.

I would also say a margin note in a 16th century copy isn't really proving anything either as it is too far away from the original to mean anything. It would be one thing if the proof was dated closer to the time of the book being written. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe this footnote was just added in by someone from the 16th period trying to convince people of their day that Macabees is scripture much like Nathan is doing right now. That's my take on it.

Why would Jesus refuse to celebrate? Is it an evil holiday? I mean, we’re talking about the time when the Greeks polluted the temple, so the Maccabees defeated the Greeks, purified the temple, and re-dedicated it to God.

What’s so bad about this?

This was important enough to God to have Daniel prophesy about it in Daniel 8 and 11.

Why would Jesus be opposed to celebrate?

If Jesus wasn’t celebrating it, then why did he travel to Jerusalem? Why not stay back in Galilee if he’s not going to celebrate?

Besides, where does it specifically say that he refused to celebrate it?

Sounds to me that you’re just pulling your own biased opinions out of the clear blue sky.

Daniel prophesied about it, Jesus celebrated it, the author of Hebrews included it in the “Hall of Faith” and multiple early church councils in the 300’s declared it to be divine, canonical scripture.

Why shouldn’t this be included in our Bibles? Every Bible included it until it was taken out in 1885.

 

[NathanH83]

Do you actually READ posts? Do you pay any attention WHATSOEVER to the words? Do you even notice them?

I said - repeatedly, clearly, literally, verbatim, in real black and white words - that I do NOT claim to have ANY authority to add or delete ANYTHING from any tome or collection. NOR DO YOU. Nor does any Catholic pope or Early Church Father or any denomination gathering of the RCC or any other, nor Martin Luther or John Calvin, nor any meeting of any diocese or any synod.... and NOT YOU.


Brother, NO pan-Christian "council" has decided ANYTHING in this regard, didn't even voice an opinion or question regarding it. There have been 4-7 such meetings in history and NONE of them even mentioned a word about what is and is not canonical.


Now, you seem to be confused by the word "council" and you seem to have this weird, incredible, very silly idea that if the word "council" is used, it MUST be pan-Christians (Ecumenical) and must be binding and authoritative on all believers. Friend, every month, on the first Tuesday of the month, my little parish has a "CHURCH COUNCIL" meeting. It's called a "CHURCH COUNCIL." Like million of other churches, we have a CHURCH COUNCIL meeting every month. We call it our CHURCH COUNCIL. Last month, we decided to get a new photocopier. Now, your absurd, beyond laughable, "logic" is THEREFORE every congregation until Jesus returns is mandated to get a new photocopier. How absurd! Friend, "council" just means "meeting." "Church council" just means a meeting of a church. You forget to ask, "WHICH church?" Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is pan-Christian. Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is made up of all Christian (or all bishops), Not every meeting with the title of "church council" is binding on all Christians for all times. Brother. there was a church council to buy a new photocopier.... are you therefore buying a new photocopier?


These were tiny, REGIONAL synods, each of a given, individual, WESTERN, Latin, diocese. NOT pan-Christian, NOT ecumenical. And you don't accept them! You are not Catholic! Since you yourself don't accept the thousands upon thousands of Catholic meetings as BINDING on YOU, why do you insist everyone else accepts them as inerrant and binding.... everyone BUT YOU?



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). You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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. You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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. You reject such meetings, you don't abide by them.

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.




.

If early church councils have no authority by God to decide which books belong in the Bible, then how do you know which books belong in the New Testament?

I mean, you list off all these things that you claim don’t have authority to declare what is canonical. But you never took the time to explain what decides what does decide the canon.

There is clear evidence that early Christians accepted the books of the Maccabees, and declared that they believe it belongs in the canon.

What would cause that?

It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that the early churches believed Maccabees to be scripture because the disciples told them so, and because it was included in their copies of the Septuagint, which is the Bible the disciples gave them.

But this would have to mean that the Jews who lived before Christ accepted the Maccabees as scripture, and chose to include them in the Septuagint.

Even Jews today acknowledge that it wasn’t until 90 AD at the Jewish council of Jamnia when the Jews decided to take it out for some reason.

That’s about 60 years after the crucifixion!

If the Jews were deciding the canon of scripture AFTER the start of Christianity, then clearly the Jews would end up with a different canon than the Christians. And that’s exactly what we see in the early centuries.

 

[Origen]

There is clear evidence that early Christians accepted the books of the Maccabees, and declared that they believe it belongs in the canon.

And there is clear evidence that many did not.

It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that the early churches believed Maccabees to be scripture because the disciples told them so, and because it was included in their copies of the Septuagint, which is the Bible the disciples gave them.

Pure fantasy with zero evidence to support it.

But this would have to mean that the Jews who lived before Christ accepted the Maccabees as scripture, and chose to include them in the Septuagint.

Again rank speculation with no evidence to support the claim.

Even Jews today acknowledge that it wasn’t until 90 AD at the Jewish council of Jamnia when the Jews decided to take it out for some reason.

It really does not matter what they acknowledge without evidence.

Please cite a 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."

 

[Andrew]

And there is clear evidence that many did not.

Really? Where is the evidence that "many" 1rst and 2nd century Christians "clearly" did not accept any particular book in their scriptures/LXX? Because CLEARLY many did, I mean they made it into the Christian Bible did they not? Or this thread would have never existed

 

[Origen]

Really? Where is the evidence that "many" 1rst and 2nd century Christians "clearly" did not accept any particular book in their scriptures/LXX?

Either evidence exist or it does not. Lack of evidence cannot support a point. One cannot prove something exists by pointing out there is no evidence for it. Such an idea is absolutely ludacris.

 

[Andrew]

Either evidence exist or it does not. Lack of evidence cannot support a point. One cannot prove something exists by pointing out there is no evidence for it. Such an idea is absolutely ludacris.

But that's exactly what you did, you claimed that clearly many didn't as if you have many testimony to the claims.

IF THEY MADE IT INTO OUR BIBLES AND REMAINED THERE UP UNTIL THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS THEN CLEARLY MANY MANY MANY CHRISTIANS ACCEPTED THEM

oops, im sorry I must have accidently hit the caps lock key

 

[Origen]

But that's exactly what you did, you claimed that clearly many didn't as if you have many testimony to the claims.

I have. If you care to look I start a thread on canon list some time ago. You even posted on it.

 

[Andrew]

I have. If you care to look I start a thread on canon list some time ago. You even posted on it.

Approximately 500 Million Protestants and 15 million Jews do not accept Maccabees as canon

Approximately 1.1 Billion Roman Catholics and 250 million Eastern Orthodox do

 

[Origen]

Approximately 500 Million Protestants and 15 million Jews do not accept Maccabees as canon

Approximately 1.1 Billion Roman Catholics and 250 million Eastern Orthodox do

Is the truth of a matter decided by majority vote?

 

[Andrew]

Is the truth of a matter decided by majority vote?

According to you it does

 

[Origen]

According to you it does

Exactly where did I make that claim? Be specific! Please provide the link.

 

[Andrew]

The RCC and the EOC might have some goofy ideas but not as goofy as taking the word of Jerome's unbelieving Rabbis who's canon cuts off the prophet John and their Messiah -over the uncut Septuagint used by early Christians even quoting from it over 300+ times and used up to this day

 

[Origen]

The RCC and the EOC might have some goofy ideas but not as goofy as taking the word of Jerome's unbelieving Rabbis who's canon cuts off the prophet John and their Messiah -over the uncut Septuagint used by early Christians even quoting from it over 300+ times and used up to this day

That is not evidence but your personal opinion.