Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[NathanH83]

I am proving exactly just what I set out to prove. You cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

What are your claims?

 

[Origen]

What are your claims?

You cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

 

[NathanH83]

I much rather doubt God would have a book written and then casually lose it for centuries only to turn up now. I am quite confident God is capable of having his word written down and preserved throughout the centuries as it would be imperative for Him to do so if He is to expect any of us to trust in it. I personally think any books that were getting counted as scripture then later on not counting as scripture as proof that God didn't write it and didn't want it included along those books He did write in spite of man's attempt to include books He had not written as books He did write. It doesn't mean there has to be anything wrong with the book as it simply is not one he had a hand in writing through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Who lost it?

Maccabees was in everyone’s Bibles, right up to the Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s. Even then Protestants still had it in their Bibles until 1885 when they took out the Apocryphal section. Even when they took it out, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Coptics, and Ethiopians still had it in their Bibles.

We’re not talking about a book that has been lost at ANY point in time.

We’re talking about a sect of Christianity called Protestantism which took the book out in the late 19th century. A book which was in everyone’s Bibles for the first 19 centuries, and was still in the rest of Christianity’s Bibles who were not a part of the Protestant sect.

Do you really think that just because a 20th century sect had books missing from their Bibles, then that suddenly means those books were lost for centuries?

You really don’t have a clue what you’re taking about, do you?

Nobody lost Maccabees.

 

[Josiah]

What are your claims?

You seem to have some incredible and remarkable ideas about apologetics, my brother..... When you make a claim (as you do over and over, in thread after thread... often related to some book you regard as Scripture).... it's YOUR responsibility to substantiate it as FACT, as TRUE, to the level you claim. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove you wrong, it's YOUR responsibility to prove your position FACT. Your silly attempt to divert all responsibility is absurd, your "well, prove me wrong!" point does only one thing: Reveal that you realize you have an empty hand, with nothing to show.



.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,


You make several REMARKABLE mistakes....


1. You ASSUME that if some writing is read or quoted or used or even just translated into another language, ERGO it just HAS to be embraced by every believer (Jew or Christian) as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). You go on and on and on - endlessly - about how something was read or quoted or referenced, as if that proves ANYTHING WHATSOEVER (which we all realize, it does not). And you are incredibly inconsistent in the application of this silly assumption, because there are LOTS of writings that Jews and Christians read, use, quote and some even call "SCRIPTURE" that you reject as Scripture. You reject your own foundational apologetic - but demand that we accept it. THINK.


2. You ASSUME that if some writing contains history (at least accurate history) then ERGO it just HAS to be embraced by every believer (Jew and Christian) as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). You go on and on and on and on - endlessly - about how some writing has accurate history in it and thus must be canonical Scripture. It's beyond silly. And here again, you are amazingly inconsistent on how you apply your own apologetic - there are MILLIONS of history books, full of accurate history, that you don't accept as Scripture so there goes your entire argument. Josephus wrote MUCH history about Judaism and yet you don't accept his writings as Scripture. You don't accept your OWN apologetic - yet demand everyone else does. THINK.


3. You ASSUME that if the words " CHURCH COUNCIL" are used, it therefore MUST be a pan-Christian, ecumenical, binding, authoritative body for all Christians and all Christian must docilicly submit to it. Is it possible to be more laughable? More absurd? More silly in your assumption? The Catholic Church discovered the 3 "councils" you keep referencing but at least acknowledge their very limited role, you don't. Just because there's a church council doesn't mean much. There are perhaps MILLIONS of church council meetings every month - perhaps just in the USA. My parish has one on the First Thursday of every month. It's called the "CHURCH COUNCIL." But is it ecumenical - including every Christian bishop, every diocese? No, just our parish. Is it binding beyond our parish? No. Last month the CHURCH COUNCIL decided to buy a new photocopier, so is every Christian parish on the planet Earth ergo required to buy a new copier? Did yours? THINK, my brother! Hello, McFly! THINK. None of those little, obscure "councils" you note (long forgotten, little known until the Catholic Church dug them up in the 16th Century) were ecumenical meetings. None of them were binding (certainly not outside that diocese). And none of them said "these are the canonical Scriptures" they at most said "these are the books that may be used for the Lectionary of the Sunday Mass for this jurisdiction, for now anyway." Apples and oranges. And here again, you are very contradictory in your application. You insists ALL must docilicly submit to every meeting called "COUNCIL" but you don't, I'm not even sure you submit to the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils, you insist we all do what you may not do EVER (except for singular misunderstood things from 3 diocese meetings) You want EVERYONE to consider ALL and ANY meeting of the Latin Church as fully binding.... definitive.... authoritative.... ecumenical. But you don't. I don't know if you docilicly accept ANY meeting of ANY diocese of the Catholic Church.... perhaps you only accept ANY meeting when you just happen to personally, currently agree with it - thus you being the authority and applauding meetings that echo you. Since you don't accept all CHURCH COUNCIL meetings (did you buy a new photocopier?) ... since you aren't docilicly obedient to all meetings of the Latin church, it's just beyond silly to require everyone else does what you don't do.


All this is combined with radical "circular reasoning" - you ASSUME some book is Scripture then try to argue that therefore it's Scripture. People keep calling you on this but you don't care.


And all this is combined with claims that are OBVIOUSLY absurd. As in "The book of Hebrews has a book reference to Second Maccabees" You said that was fact until you finally had to admit Hebrews doesn't so much has MENTION Maccabees - the word never even appears in Hebrews, ever, for anything, about anything. But rather than admit your obvious falsehood, you tried to say that if some unknown author - at least 1600 years later - puts in a reference in marginal notes of a study edition of a translation - THAT's also canonical, inerrant, universally binding, divinely-inscripturated words of God. How remarkably silly. And inconsistent, because my Concordia Study Bible has a LOT of marginal notes that I doubt you accept as canonical Scripture (Or at all). So many times, you yourself finally proved yourself flat out wrong, just echoing a falsehood. I think you've burned a lot of bridges with the posters here.




Now, Nathen I agree that at at least one of the Maccabee books is good reading, important reading! I agree with Martin Luther and the Anglican Church that it SHOULD be in tomes and in the Sunday Lectionary! I agree it is unfortunate that many modern American, Canadian and European "Evangelicals" are not only ignorant of it but blatantly repudiate it. My Lutheran church did an extensive study of it during our Sunday Pastor's Class.... the LCMS publishing house has study material of it. But brother, none of that establishes that JUDAISM and/or CHRISTIANITY ever decreed that that any or all of the 4 Maccabee books are The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God. That, brother, is a whole other enchilada.... and one you have not proven is the case. Your point that some books may not be Scripture but yet still good to read is valid. Your claims about canonicity for some are baseless (or worse).





Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Christians must agree BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, generally Jews then and now 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.






.

 

[NathanH83]

You cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

Wait, though. What are you claiming?
Do you claim that the Jews who lived before the time of Christ rejected the books of Maccabees? Do you claim that? Can you provide primary sources for that? What’s your counter-argument?

 

[NathanH83]

You seem to have some incredible and remarkable ideas about apologetics, my brother..... When you make a claim (as you do over and over, in thread after thread... often related to some book you regard as Scripture).... it's YOUR responsibility to substantiate it as FACT, as TRUE, to the level you claim. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove you wrong, it's YOUR responsibility to prove your position FACT. Your silly attempt to divert all responsibility is absurd, your "well, prove me wrong!" point does only one thing: Reveal that you realize you have an empty hand, with nothing to show.



.

But don’t you believe that the Jews who lived before the time of Christ rejected Maccabees as scripture? You believe that don’t you? Do you have evidence from primary sources dated to before the time of Christ that proves the Jews back then rejected Maccabees as scripture?

If you’re not claiming that, then what? You believe one thing, or you believe the other thing. Stop acting like you’re neutral or undecided.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan,


You make several REMARKABLE mistakes....


1. You ASSUME that if some writing is read or quoted or used or even just translated into another language, ERGO it just HAS to be embraced by every believer (Jew or Christian) as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). You go on and on and on - endlessly - about how something was read or quoted or referenced, as if that proves ANYTHING WHATSOEVER (which we all realize, it does not). And you are incredibly inconsistent in the application of this silly assumption, because there are LOTS of writings that Jews and Christians read, use, quote and some even call "SCRIPTURE" that you reject as Scripture. You reject your own foundational apologetic - but demand that we accept it. THINK.


2. You ASSUME that if some writing contains history (at least accurate history) then ERGO it just HAS to be embraced by every believer (Jew and Christian) as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). You go on and on and on and on - endlessly - about how some writing has accurate history in it and thus must be canonical Scripture. It's beyond silly. And here again, you are amazingly inconsistent on how you apply your own apologetic - there are MILLIONS of history books, full of accurate history, that you don't accept as Scripture so there goes your entire argument. Josephus wrote MUCH history about Judaism and yet you don't accept his writings as Scripture. You don't accept your OWN apologetic - yet demand everyone else does. THINK.


3. You ASSUME that if the words " CHURCH COUNCIL" are used, it therefore MUST be a pan-Christian, ecumenical, binding, authoritative body for all Christians and all Christian must docilicly submit to it. Is it possible to be more laughable? More absurd? More silly in your assumption? The Catholic Church discovered the 3 "councils" you keep referencing but at least acknowledge their very limited role, you don't. Just because there's a church council doesn't mean much. There are perhaps MILLIONS of church council meetings every month - perhaps just in the USA. My parish has one on the First Thursday of every month. It's called the "CHURCH COUNCIL." But is it ecumenical - including every Christian bishop, every diocese? No, just our parish. Is it binding beyond our parish? No. Last month the CHURCH COUNCIL decided to buy a new photocopier, so is every Christian parish on the planet Earth ergo required to buy a new copier? Did yours? THINK, my brother! Hello, McFly! THINK. None of those little, obscure "councils" you note (long forgotten, little known until the Catholic Church dug them up in the 16th Century) were ecumenical meetings. None of them were binding (certainly not outside that diocese). And none of them said "these are the canonical Scriptures" they at most said "these are the books that may be used for the Lectionary of the Sunday Mass for this jurisdiction, for now anyway." Apples and oranges. And here again, you are very contradictory in your application. You insists ALL must docilicly submit to every meeting called "COUNCIL" but you don't, I'm not even sure you submit to the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils, you insist we all do what you may not do EVER (except for singular misunderstood things from 3 diocese meetings) You want EVERYONE to consider ALL and ANY meeting of the Latin Church as fully binding.... definitive.... authoritative.... ecumenical. But you don't. I don't know if you docilicly accept ANY meeting of ANY diocese of the Catholic Church.... perhaps you only accept ANY meeting when you just happen to personally, currently agree with it - thus you being the authority and applauding meetings that echo you. Since you don't accept all CHURCH COUNCIL meetings (did you buy a new photocopier?) ... since you aren't docilicly obedient to all meetings of the Latin church, it's just beyond silly to require everyone else does what you don't do.


All this is combined with radical "circular reasoning" - you ASSUME some book is Scripture then try to argue that therefore it's Scripture. People keep calling you on this but you don't care.


And all this is combined with claims that are OBVIOUSLY absurd. As in "The book of Hebrews has a book reference to Second Maccabees" You said that was fact until you finally had to admit Hebrews doesn't so much has MENTION Maccabees - the word never even appears in Hebrews, ever, for anything, about anything. But rather than admit your obvious falsehood, you tried to say that if some unknown author - at least 1600 years later - puts in a reference in marginal notes of a study edition of a translation - THAT's also canonical, inerrant, universally binding, divinely-inscripturated words of God. How remarkably silly. And inconsistent, because my Concordia Study Bible has a LOT of marginal notes that I doubt you accept as canonical Scripture (Or at all). So many times, you yourself finally proved yourself flat out wrong, just echoing a falsehood. I think you've burned a lot of bridges with the posters here.




Now, Nathen I agree that at at least one of the Maccabee books is good reading, important reading! I agree with Martin Luther and the Anglican Church that it SHOULD be in tomes and in the Sunday Lectionary! I agree it is unfortunate that many modern American, Canadian and European "Evangelicals" are not only ignorant of it but blatantly repudiate it. My Lutheran church did an extensive study of it during our Sunday Pastor's Class.... the LCMS publishing house has study material of it. But brother, none of that establishes that JUDAISM and/or CHRISTIANITY ever decreed that that any or all of the 4 Maccabee books are The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God. That, brother, is a whole other enchilada.... and one you have not proven is the case. Your point that some books may not be Scripture but yet still good to read is valid. Your claims about canonicity for some are baseless (or worse).





Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Christians must agree BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, generally Jews then and now 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.






.

You claim the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible. Is your decision pan-Christain, ecumenical, and binding?

If church councils of the 300’s have no authority, then who does? You?

 

[Origen]

Wait, though. What are you claiming?
Do you claim that the Jews who lived before the time of Christ rejected the books of Maccabees? Do you claim that? Can you provide primary sources for that? What’s your counter-argument?

Again, that you cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims. That is what I claim.

 

[Josiah]

You claim the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible.

Do you read anything posted to you? It seems you simply ignore and evade ... then claim things (like this) that everyone knows isn't true.


Try this (I'm sure it will benefit discussion). Try reading post 265 (for starters). Read the words there. Pay no attention to words not there but notice the words that are there. Read all of them, the entire post, before responding to any of it. If you want to reply, QUOTE the word or words you wish to reply to. Don't state I posted something and then prove you know I didn't because you aren't quoting it. And stop "the shell game" That's a silly ploy some high school kids use on debate teams, namely, if you find yourself with an empty hand with no valid reply, change the subject. And stop that silly ploy (disallowed in debate) of evading something by accusing the other of holding to a position they never indicated they hold.

YOU are the one coming here in thread after thread, going on and on and on and on and on, usually about some book YOU think we all should consider as canonical Scripture, making claims. You state things you claim are FACTS but offer nothing to substantiate that, as if YOU are the infallible One, the Authortative One.... giving apologetics that are remarkably absurd and prove you consider them absurd because you don't accept them - but demand we do. And punctuate that with "Well, I have nothing to prove I'm right so it's up to you to prove me wrong!" Brother, that's just laughable.

I think you're a nice guy.... and probably have some good things to contribute to our community; I'm glad you're here. And the community here is showing AMAZING tolerance and respect (cuz it's what we do). But no one has a clue WHAT your point is (because every time we ask, you ignore it). You've somehow gotten caught up in some subject, probably at some website... and now you are doing the copy/paste (of ideas if not posts) from that.... but obviously, missing whatever the POINT is and even more obviously, not THINKING it through. Your frustration grows.... as does ours. You need to READ what people say to you if you have any reason to ask them to read your posts. You need to stop inventing things and assigning them to others that we all know they never said (and you PROVE it by not quoting them). You need to stop "the shell game" and stop tryng to turn the tables by demanding others prove you wrong (thus admitting, you know you have nothing to prove you right). This is a wonderful community, but while patience is a virtue it's not unlimited.... at some point, you'll simply loose everyone. And I think that would be unfortunate.





.

 

[Andrew]

You don't read anything posted to you, do you? You simply ignore and evade everything... then claim things (like this) that everyone knows isn't true.


Try this (I'm sure it will benefit discussion). Try reading post 265 (for starters). Read the words there. Pay no attention to words not there but notice the words that are there. Read all of them, the entire post, before responding to any of it. If you want to reply, QUOTE the word or words you wish to reply to. Don't state I posted something and then prove you know I didn't because you aren't quoting it. And stop "the shell game" That's a silly ploy some high school kids use on debate teams, namely, if you find yourself with an empty hand with no valid reply, change the subject. And stop that silly ploy (disallowed in debate) of evading something by accusing the other of holding to a position they never indicated they hold.

YOU are the one coming here in thread after thread, going on and on and on and on and on, usually about some book YOU think we all should consider as canonical Scripture, making claims. You state things you claim are FACTS but offer nothing to substantiate that, as if YOU are the infallible One, the Authortative One.... giving apologetics that are remarkably absurd and prove you consider them absurd because you don't accept them - but demand we do. And punctuate that with "Well, I have nothing to prove I'm right so it's up to you to prove me wrong!" Brother, that's just laughable.

I think you're a nice guy.... and probably have some good things to contribute to our community; I'm glad you're here. And the community here is showing AMAZING tolerance and respect (cuz it's what we do). But no one has a clue WHAT your point is (because every time we ask, you ignore it). You've somehow gotten caught up in some subject, probably at some website... and now you are doing the copy/paste (of ideas if not posts) from that.... but obviously, missing whatever the POINT is and even more obviously, not THINKING it through. Your frustration grows.... as does ours. You need to READ what people say to you if you have any reason to ask them to read your posts. You need to stop inventing things and assigning them to others that we all know they never said (and you PROVE it by not quoting them). You need to stop "the shell game" and stop tryng to turn the tables by demanding others prove you wrong (thus admitting, you know you have nothing to prove you right). This is a wonderful community, but while patience is a virtue it's not unlimited.... at some point, you'll simply loose everyone. And I think that would be unfortunate.





.

Hey Josiah how did any of the books of Maccabees get in our Bibles in the first place?

 

[Josiah]

Hey Josiah how did any of the books of Maccabees get in our Bibles in the first place?

That's called "circular reasoning."

And it's evasion. A claim isn't true simply because it's claimed that it is.

Read posts 243 and 245.

Read what was posted to Nathan in 246.



.

 

[Andrew]

Now, Andrew, I agree that at at least one of the Maccabee books is good reading, important reading!!



.

 

[Lamb]

That doesn't prove it's Divine.

 

[Josiah]

Andrew,


Read and consider post 243, 245 and 265.


Friend, just because a book contains history - even accurate history - does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such.

Brother, just because a book contains history about the Jews - does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such. Do you accept all the writings of Josephus?

Friend, just because a book is read by Jews and/or Christians does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such. We have proof that they read MANY books you don't accept as Scripture.

Brother, just because a book is quoted by a tiny number of Jews or Christians - does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such.

Friend, just because a book is translated from one language to another - does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such. Luther's Catechism has been translated into over 100 languages, is it thus Scripture?

Friend, just because some Church Council decides something does not prove that ergo it is The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Jews and Christians must regard it as such. I attended a Church Council meeting that decided to buy a new photocopier,is that binding on all Christians and perhaps Jews? Do you accept all Church Councils as infallible and authoritative and binding on all Christians? IS there evidence that Nathan accepts all CHURCH COUNCIL meetings of the Latin church? If not, why one tiny aspect of 3 largely forgotten ones but nothing else from any other?



.

 

[Josiah]

Andrew,


If you want to claim that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees WAS ONCE held as Scripture, then the ball is exclusively in your court to prove it.

It's not true because you are the Infallible, Authoritative Mouth of God.
It's not true simply because you want all to assume that it's true and thus it is true.
it's not true simply because no one can prove a negative, prove it not the case.

No one denies that there were writings in ancient times.
No one denies that folks sometimes read writings. Even used them and quoted them.
No one denies that some writings contained history, even accurate history, even history that involved Jews and/or Christians.
No one denies that you can find a tiny number of people - even famous people - who called some of these 'Scripture."
But none of that proves that Judaism and/or Christianity accepted first and/or second and/or third and/or forth Maccabees as such. Or even that more than a dozen people on the planet at the time personally held to such an opinion;. You know that. We all do.

IF you want to substantiate that Judaism and Jews accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to the Five Books of Moses you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some Ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-JEWISH that all Jews accepted and accept. OR you need proof that every Jewish PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but for #1, I'm not sure there ever was or is now such a body.

IF you want to substantiate that Christianity and Christians accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say Paul's Epistle to the Romans you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some Ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-Christian (East and West, Greek and Latin.... from England to Egypt) that all Christians accepted (the only possible candidate for that would be one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) and accept. OR you need proof that every Christian PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but you could look to official rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I'll save you the time. I've studied them all. None of them said or discussed ANYTHING about the canon. Friend, noting that there was a CHURCH COUNCIL meeting that decided to get a new photocopier is NOT proving that some PAN-CHRISTIAN, binding, authoritative Ruling Body of Christianity.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Again, that you cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims. That is what I claim.

And you can? Where are you primary sources? Where’s the evidence that the Jews who lived before Christ rejected Maccabees as scripture? All we have is Josephus’ comments. But he was after Christ.

The most sensible explanation as to why the early Christian church accepted Maccabees would be that the Jews did originally, and that’s why the early church had it in the Septuagint. That’s the most logical explanation.

Do you have a better explanation as to why the early church authorities included Maccabees?

I mean, even the King James Bible included Maccabees in the 1600’s. How did these books that “don’t belong” still end up getting included in Christian Bibles a whole 1600 years after the start of Christianity?

You would think that if the early church was told by Jesus’ JEWISH disciples that these books don’t belong, then surely Maccabees would have been kept out of the Bible from the very beginning. Why did it take 1800 years for us to finally perfect the Bible?

What?!!!

 

[NathanH83]

Do you read anything posted to you? It seems you simply ignore and evade ... then claim things (like this) that everyone knows isn't true.


Try this (I'm sure it will benefit discussion). Try reading post 265 (for starters). Read the words there. Pay no attention to words not there but notice the words that are there. Read all of them, the entire post, before responding to any of it. If you want to reply, QUOTE the word or words you wish to reply to. Don't state I posted something and then prove you know I didn't because you aren't quoting it. And stop "the shell game" That's a silly ploy some high school kids use on debate teams, namely, if you find yourself with an empty hand with no valid reply, change the subject. And stop that silly ploy (disallowed in debate) of evading something by accusing the other of holding to a position they never indicated they hold.

YOU are the one coming here in thread after thread, going on and on and on and on and on, usually about some book YOU think we all should consider as canonical Scripture, making claims. You state things you claim are FACTS but offer nothing to substantiate that, as if YOU are the infallible One, the Authortative One.... giving apologetics that are remarkably absurd and prove you consider them absurd because you don't accept them - but demand we do. And punctuate that with "Well, I have nothing to prove I'm right so it's up to you to prove me wrong!" Brother, that's just laughable.

I think you're a nice guy.... and probably have some good things to contribute to our community; I'm glad you're here. And the community here is showing AMAZING tolerance and respect (cuz it's what we do). But no one has a clue WHAT your point is (because every time we ask, you ignore it). You've somehow gotten caught up in some subject, probably at some website... and now you are doing the copy/paste (of ideas if not posts) from that.... but obviously, missing whatever the POINT is and even more obviously, not THINKING it through. Your frustration grows.... as does ours. You need to READ what people say to you if you have any reason to ask them to read your posts. You need to stop inventing things and assigning them to others that we all know they never said (and you PROVE it by not quoting them). You need to stop "the shell game" and stop tryng to turn the tables by demanding others prove you wrong (thus admitting, you know you have nothing to prove you right). This is a wonderful community, but while patience is a virtue it's not unlimited.... at some point, you'll simply loose everyone. And I think that would be unfortunate.





.

Wait, are you saying that the Apocrypha should be included in the Bible? Or that it shouldn’t be? What are you saying?

 

[NathanH83]

That doesn't prove it's Divine.

Can you prove that Song of Solomon is divine?

 

[Josiah]

Wait, are you saying that the Apocrypha should be included in the Bible? Or that it shouldn’t be? What are you saying?

Try something, my friend. I think it will REALLY help! Try READING. Reading the words on the page, in the post. ALL of them that are there. But don't read words that are not on the page, in the post, no invisible missing words. Try it!


Brother, what I'm saying is what I've said. Isn't that easy? Nothing invisible. And what you've said is what you've said. Big claims! But when it comes to substantiation, lots of evasions, dodges, "the shell game" and apologetics you yourself reject all mixed with circular reasoning and very, very inconsistent application.


Try this (I'm sure it will benefit discussion). Try reading post 265 (for starters). Read the words there. Read all of them, the entire post, before responding to any of it. Don't pay ANY attention to words not there. It's not hard to do! If you want to reply, QUOTE the word or words you wish to reply to. Don't state I posted something and then prove you know I didn't because you aren't quoting it. And stop "the shell game" That's a silly ploy some high school kids use on debate teams, namely, if you find yourself with an empty hand with no valid reply, change the subject. And stop that silly ploy (disallowed in debate) of evading something by accusing the other of holding to a position they never indicated they hold.

And admitting, "Well, it's SURE HARD for me to substantiate all the amazing claims I make here!!" doesn't help your case... and isn't apologetics... it doesn't substantiate anything.

And insisting, "Well, I can't substantiate my position but hey, you can't prove me wrong!!!" doesn't help your case (it just proves your hand is empty).


YOU are the one coming here in thread after thread, going on and on and on and on and on, usually about some book YOU think we all should consider as canonical Scripture, making claims. You state things you claim are FACTS but offer nothing to substantiate that, as if YOU are the infallible One, the Authortative One.... giving apologetics that are remarkably absurd and prove you consider them absurd because you don't accept them - but demand we do.




.