Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Andrew]

What?
The Lord gave an everlasting ordinance called pesach or passover which is one of the three Holy days.

But you added to The Lords Word when comparing the feast of dedication to The Holy days given by The Most High.

And i asked why?

Because the book of John would not use a pagan or secular holiday for a timestamp, its mentioned for a reason because Jews looked toward the Temple and made a pilgrimage in observance of it just like on EASTER Christians look toward the Works on the Cross..

The only reason the Church made the apocrypha canon which you hate, is because they were canonizing the New Testament! Thus our bible has the old and the new testament!

Bye bye I am putting you on ignore now, enjoy the Bible that the mythical and dumb church fathers preserved for you as you spit on their graves and spit on the hands of the septuagint holding Christian martyrs, you KNOW as a fact that there was NO HEBREW MASORETIC for the early Christians to read yet you persecute them by calling them fictional and not admitting that they accepted the books your protestant teachers taught you to hate, you know they accepted them because it made into our HOLY BIBLE where it remained for almost two whole centuries.

Peace out

 

[Andrew]

Are Catholics christians?

100%

 

[Origen]

100%

Is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)? Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it.

 

[pinacled]

Shame on you, there was no papacy then. A "Clement" is mentioned by Paul and it's likely him since he took over the Church of Rome after Paul died.

You spit on the faces of Christians

[ 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.]

Are you going to explain the Above statement?
There are 3 Holy days.
Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot.

Why are you claiming that "Jews" made a pilgrimage during the winter for the feast of dedication?

 

[pinacled]

Because the book of John would not use a pagan or secular holiday for a timestamp, its mentioned for a reason because Jews looked toward the Temple and made a pilgrimage in observance of it just like on EASTER Christians look toward the Works on the Cross..

The only reason the Church made the apocrypha canon which you hate, is because they were canonizing the New Testament! Thus our bible has the old and the new testament!

Bye bye I am putting you on ignore now, enjoy the Bible that the mythical and dumb church fathers preserved for you as you spit on their graves and spit on the hands of the septuagint holding Christian martyrs, you KNOW as a fact that there was NO HEBREW MASORETIC for the early Christians to read yet you persecute them by calling them fictional and not admitting that they accepted the books your protestant teachers taught you to hate, you know they accepted them because it made into our HOLY BIBLE where it remained for almost two whole centuries.

Peace out

Ignore The Truth all you like.

But The readers here will be given a healthy amount.

Blessings Always

 

[Andrew]

Is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)? Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it.

He was only a Bishop

 

[Origen]

He was only a Bishop

I did not ask if he was a bishop. I asked, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)?

And then I added: "Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it" which I am still not.

So once again, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope?

 

[pinacled]

I did not ask if he was a bishop. I asked, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)?

And then I added: "Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it" which I am still not.

So once again, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope?

And yet 1 clement isn't canonical.
Strange.?

 

[Andrew]

I did not ask if he was a bishop. I asked, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)?

And then I added: "Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it" which I am still not.

So once again, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope?

I was raised Catholic and I had no idea who this guy was until about 2 years ago.
But yeah the Catholic Church believes he was a "Pope" which is latin for father, no church father claimed to be the vicor of Jesus, are you trying to say that the phrase early Church Fathers means the same thing as Pontifus Maximus? Because it isnt, just in case that's what your getting at

 

[Origen]

no church father claimed to be the vicor of Jesus, are you trying to say that the phrase early Church Fathers means the same thing as Pontifus Maximus?

Never said they did.

are you trying to say that the phrase early Church Fathers means the same thing as Pontifus Maximus?

Never said that either.

Again please stop trying to put words into my mouth.

But yeah the Catholic Church believes he was a "Pope"

Since Catholics are christian as you have admitted, and given it is a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope as you have admitted, how is that spitting "on the faces of Christians"?

 

[NathanH83]

And there is clear evidence that many did not.


Pure fantasy with zero evidence to support it.


Again rank speculation with no evidence to support the claim.


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."

It’s not pure fantasy to suggest that the reason the early Christians accepted Maccabees is because the disciples told them it’s scripture. It’s actually much more fantastical to believe the disciples did NOT accept it.

I mean, think about it. Think about how Clement mentioned Judith in his letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. People today say that Judith is just fiction.

Well, Paul warned people against Jewish fables. If Judith was a Jewish fable, he would have warned people not to read Judith.

But then the split second after Paul dies, the churches of Rome and Corinth say to themselves, “Quick! Paul’s dead! Hurry up and put Judith in the Bible!”

Sorry, but THAT’S what doesn’t make sense.

The suggestion that the early church accepted these books is because the disciples did -that’s actually the logical conclusion.

But to suggest that the early church accepted them when the disciples warned them to stay away from them....now that’s illogical.


And of course there were some early church fathers who said those books don’t belong, because the Jews who lived after Christ were telling them that. Of course some Christians were convinced by the unbelieving Jews. Jerome himself specifically said that the Jews are the ones who caused him to think that.

Do you have a better explanation as to why the early churches accepted these books and the disciples didn’t? You reject the most logical explanation as pure fantasy. Ok? Then what’s your explanation, wise guy?

 

[Origen]

It’s not pure fantasy to suggest that the reason the early Christians accepted Maccabees is because the disciples told them it’s scripture.

Except for the fact there is no evidence.

Well, Paul warned people against Jewish fables. If Judith was a Jewish fable, he would have warned people not to read Judith.

Since Paul does not specifically name any Jewish fable in order to warned his readers, your claim proves nothing concerning Judith. Just another example wishful thinking on your part.

Do you have a better explanation as to why the early churches accepted these books and the disciples didn’t? You reject the most logical explanation as pure fantasy. Ok? Then what’s your explanation, wise guy?

My point is simple. Any view put forward requires objective evidence. You have made several historical claim but cannot provide any primary sources for those claims and you have been ask repeatedly. Therefore you have zero evidence to support your view. If there were evidence, you would have provided it by now.

 

[pinacled]

It’s not pure fantasy to suggest that the reason the early Christians accepted Maccabees is because the disciples told them it’s scripture. It’s actually much more fantastical to believe the disciples did NOT accept it.

I mean, think about it. Think about how Clement mentioned Judith in his letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. People today say that Judith is just fiction.

Well, Paul warned people against Jewish fables. If Judith was a Jewish fable, he would have warned people not to read Judith.

But then the split second after Paul dies, the churches of Rome and Corinth say to themselves, “Quick! Paul’s dead! Hurry up and put Judith in the Bible!”

Sorry, but THAT’S what doesn’t make sense.

The suggestion that the early church accepted these books is because the disciples did -that’s actually the logical conclusion.

But to suggest that the early church accepted them when the disciples warned them to stay away from them....now that’s illogical.


And of course there were some early church fathers who said those books don’t belong, because the Jews who lived after Christ were telling them that. Of course some Christians were convinced by the unbelieving Jews. Jerome himself specially said that the Jews are the ones who caused him to think that.

Do you have a better explanation as to why the early churches accepted these books and the disciples didn’t? You reject the most logical explanation as pure fantasy. Ok? Then what’s your explanation, wise guy?

[ Paul warned people against Jewish fables]

When did this occur?

Titus 1
[ Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.]
Context is a key

 

[pinacled]

[ Paul warned people against Jewish fables]

When did this occur?

Titus 1
[ Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.]
Context is a key

Meaning that Yeshua did not celebrate a "commandment of men" to memorialize the dead nor the temple being re'dedicated.

As I ve said before
Being present doesn't equate to celebrate.

 

[pinacled]

Meaning that Yeshua did not celebrate a "commandment of men" to memorialize the dead nor the temple being re'dedicated.

As I ve said before
Being present doesn't equate to celebrate.

Vayikra
כח וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the LORD.}

No markings for the dead where as ole sh'aul mentions bearing marks of another kind.

Galatians
" From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

 

[pinacled]

It’s not pure fantasy to suggest that the reason the early Christians accepted Maccabees is because the disciples told them it’s scripture. It’s actually much more fantastical to believe the disciples did NOT accept it.

I mean, think about it. Think about how Clement mentioned Judith in his letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. People today say that Judith is just fiction.

Well, Paul warned people against Jewish fables. If Judith was a Jewish fable, he would have warned people not to read Judith.

But then the split second after Paul dies, the churches of Rome and Corinth say to themselves, “Quick! Paul’s dead! Hurry up and put Judith in the Bible!”

Sorry, but THAT’S what doesn’t make sense.

The suggestion that the early church accepted these books is because the disciples did -that’s actually the logical conclusion.

But to suggest that the early church accepted them when the disciples warned them to stay away from them....now that’s illogical.


And of course there were some early church fathers who said those books don’t belong, because the Jews who lived after Christ were telling them that. Of course some Christians were convinced by the unbelieving Jews. Jerome himself specially said that the Jews are the ones who caused him to think that.

Do you have a better explanation as to why the early churches accepted these books and the disciples didn’t? You reject the most logical explanation as pure fantasy. Ok? Then what’s your explanation, wise guy?

A Truthful Nathan.

[ But that night the Lord spoke his word to Nathan, 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, “Why haven’t you built me a house of cedar?”’

8 “You must tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you. I will make you as famous as any of the great people on the earth. 10 Also I will choose a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so they can live in their own homes. They will not be bothered anymore. Wicked people will no longer bother them as they have in the past 11 when I chose judges for my people Israel. But I will give you peace from all your enemies. I also tell you that I will make your descendants kings of Israel after you.

12 “‘When you die and join your ancestors, I will make one of your sons the next king, and I will set up his kingdom. 13 He will build a house for me, and I will let his kingdom rule always. ]

Solomons porch where the gift of wisdom is given.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

I was raised Catholic and I had no idea who this guy was until about 2 years ago.
But yeah the Catholic Church believes he was a "Pope" which is latin for father, no church father claimed to be the vicor of Jesus, are you trying to say that the phrase early Church Fathers means the same thing as Pontifus Maximus? Because it isnt, just in case that's what your getting at

And I doubt you have a grasp of the meaning of the name Clement'Cy

Otherwise your spiritual form would know the steps of wisdom.

Be wary of manners youngin.

 

[NathanH83]

Except for the fact there is no evidence.


Since Paul does not specifically name any Jewish fable in order to warned his readers, your claim proves nothing concerning Judith. Just another example wishful thinking on your part.


My point is simple. Any view put forward requires objective evidence. You have made several historical claim but cannot provide any primary sources for those claims and you have been ask repeatedly. Therefore you have zero evidence to support your view. If there were evidence, you would have provided it by now.

The book of Hebrews is not a primary source??????

Clearly it was an apostle who wrote Hebrews, right? If not an apostle, it is still inspired by God, right?

Hebrews 11:35 fits with nothing in the Old Testament, but yet fits perfectly with the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

The whole chapter of Hebrews insinuates that this is biblical history. The context of the chapter is that these Maccabean martyrs are also a part of Biblical history.

This is very convincing evidence to me. So when I see dozens of church fathers and church councils declaring 2 Maccabees to be a part of the Bible and calling it canonical scripture.... that actually makes sense to me, because the writer of Hebrews suggests that.

I know what context is. I went to elementary school and I learned how to read things in context.

The context of Hebrews 11 is that these events from Maccabees are also a part of the Bible. So it’s no big mystery to me why the early church declared it to be scripture.

This is very significant evidence, and it goes right along with the fact that Daniel chapters 8 and 11 prophesy about these events.

It makes more sense to me that the early church accepted these books because the disciples did.

YOUR claim is that the disciples rejected these books as scripture...and yet for some magical reason, the church decided to stick them in the Bible????

That’s just laughable. You actually believe that?

 

[pinacled]

The book of Hebrews is not a primary source??????

Clearly it was an apostle who wrote Hebrews, right? If not an apostle, it is still inspired by God, right?

Hebrews 11:35 fits with nothing in the Old Testament, but yet fits perfectly with the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

The whole chapter of Hebrews insinuates that this is biblical history. The context of the chapter is that these Maccabean martyrs are also a part of Biblical history.

This is very convincing evidence to me. So when I see dozens of church fathers and church councils declaring 2 Maccabees to be a part of the Bible and calling it canonical scripture.... that actually makes sense to me, because the writer of Hebrews suggests that.

I know what context is. I went to elementary school and I learned how to read things in context.

The context of Hebrews 11 is that these events from Maccabees are also a part of the Bible. So it’s no big mystery to me why the early church declared it to be scripture.

This is very significant evidence, and it goes right along with the fact that Daniel chapters 8 and 11 prophesy about these events.

It makes more sense to me that the early church accepted these books because the disciples did.

YOUR claim is that the disciples rejected these books as scripture...and yet for some magical reason, the church decided to stick them in the Bible????

That’s just laughable. You actually believe that?

You should behave sir Andrew.
.
Manners

 

[pinacled]

Is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)? Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it.

Do you recall how many steps to the temple there are given in vision to ezekiel?