Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Origen]

And you can? Where are you primary sources? Where’s the evidence that the Jews who lived before Christ rejected Maccabees as scripture?

Since I made no claims there is nothing for me to defend.

You, are the other hand, did in fact make certain claims and then was asked to provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims. You could not then. and you cannot now.

If, however, it makes you happy you may assume for the sake of argument that my view is wrong.

How does that help you? It doesn't.

How does that support your claims? It doesn't.

How does it provide you with primary sources\objective evidence needed to support your claims? It doesn't.

After all of that you still cannot provide any primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

 

[NathanH83]

Since I made no claims there is nothing for me to defend.

You, are the other hand, did in fact make certain claims and then was asked to provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims. You could not then. and you cannot now.

If, however, it makes you happy you may assume for the sake of argument that my view is wrong.

How does that help you? It doesn't.

How does that support your claims? It doesn't.

How does it provide you with primary sources\objective evidence needed to support your claims? It doesn't.

After all of that you still cannot provide any primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

How come you’re afraid to share your beliefs? Stay on topic. Do you believe that the apocrypha belongs in the Bible or don’t you?

 

[Josiah]

How come you’re afraid to share your beliefs? Stay on topic. Do you believe that the apocrypha belongs in the Bible or don’t you?

Stop evading..... this is YOUR thread about YOUR claims. No one else is required to propose different claims.... and it would be entirely irrelevant if they did. It's YOUR claim. The proverbal "ball" is exclusively, solely in YOUR court to prove it true. Sorry, you can't require others to do it for you. Sorry, you can't ask others to prove it wrong. You made the claim (over and over and over and over).... you have the ball. Simple. The community here (being nice beyond belief!) keeps giving you the opportunity.... endlessly.... patiently..... and you just never produce anything. Just evasion... trying to turn the tables.... circular reasoning.... "the shell game"..... absurd apologetics you yourself don't accept.... and ascribing views to others we all KNOW they don't have.




.

 

[Origen]

How come you’re afraid to share your beliefs?

You simply want to divert attention away from yourself and the FACT you have no primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

Stay on topic.

I am on topic. The problem is you made claims which you cannot support and now cannot stand being held accountable for them.

 

[NathanH83]

You simply want to divert attention away from yourself and the FACT you have no primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.


I am on topic. The problem is you made claims which you cannot support and now cannot stand being held accountable for them.

Yea, but you’re not sharing your beliefs about the apocrypha, nor are you sharing any evidence.

It’s a two-way street, and you’re pretending that it’s a one-way.

 

[Origen]

Yea, but you’re not sharing your beliefs about the apocrypha, nor are you sharing any evidence.

No need to do so. I have not made any claims, therefore I have nothing to defend.

It’s a two-way street, and you’re pretending that it’s a one-way.

Nothing to pretend. There is simply no need to present any other view on the topic since you have zero primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

As I point outed in post 281:

If it makes you happy you may assume for the sake of argument that my view is wrong.

How does that help you? It doesn't.

How does that support your claims? It doesn't.

How does it provide you with primary sources\objective evidence needed to support your claims? It doesn't.

After all of that you still cannot provide any primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

 

[Andrew]

That doesn't prove it's Divine.

Paul speaks about false doctrines "teachings" entering into the church and warned of any other gospels being taught other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, this had everything to do with the New covenant and nothing to do with the old covenant books. Christians had those books at the very advent of the Church, either God or happenstance prepared the Christians with these OT scriptures that went into the Church, do you believe it was by happenstance or by God that we had something to work with and use to witness to the unbelieving Jews?

 

[Josiah]

Andrew....

Where is the substantiation?
See at least posts 275 and 276.



Now, you rejected (evaded?) Lamm's point that nothing you offered proved some writing was Divine. Friend, she's right on target. And the claim is that some writing IS Divine, IS canonical, IS the inerrant normative DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God. But friend, brother, neither you or Nathan have offered any proof of this claim. You want others to prove it for you... you want others to offer alternatives or answer irrelevant questions.... you want others to accept councils and decisions and apologetics you reject... but none of that is substantiation.

Brother, I know you believe that truth matters. I know you are concerned with groups such as the Mormons sucking in people with unsubstantiated claims. So, the "ball" is in your court. The community here is being INCREDIBLY patient (this is for you, you are respected around here).



.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew....

Where is the substantiation?
See at least posts 275 and 276.



Now, you rejected (evaded?) Lamm's point that nothing you offered proved some writing was Divine. Friend, she's right on target. And the claim is that some writing IS Divine, IS canonical, IS the inerrant normative DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God. But friend, brother, neither you or Nathan have offered any proof of this claim. You want others to prove it for you... you want others to offer alternatives or answer irrelevant questions.... you want others to accept councils and decisions and apologetics you reject... but none of that is substantiation.

Brother, I know you believe that truth matters. I know you are concerned with groups such as the Mormons sucking in people with unsubstantiated claims. So, the "ball" is in your court. The community here is being INCREDIBLY patient (this is for you, you are respected around here).



.

This was never an issue in Christianity until Jesus-REJECTING Jews persuaded a gullible Jerome to forsake Christian tradition, before that we find nothing concerning any of the books of Maccabees in Christianity, if anything it was the opposite

 

[Origen]

This was never an issue in Christianity until Jesus-REJECTING Jews persuaded a gullible Jerome to forsake Christian tradition, before that we find nothing concerning any of the books of Maccabees in the Christian canon

That is simply not true. The canon lists I provided prove your claim is not correct.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew....

Where is the substantiation?
See at least posts 275 and 276.



Now, you rejected (evaded?) Lamm's point that nothing you offered proved some writing was Divine. Friend, she's right on target. And the claim is that some writing IS Divine, IS canonical, IS the inerrant normative DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God. But friend, brother, neither you or Nathan have offered any proof of this claim. You want others to prove it for you... you want others to offer alternatives or answer irrelevant questions.... you want others to accept councils and decisions and apologetics you reject... but none of that is substantiation.

Brother, I know you believe that truth matters. I know you are concerned with groups such as the Mormons sucking in people with unsubstantiated claims. So, the "ball" is in your court. The community here is being INCREDIBLY patient (this is for you, you are respected around here).



.

Btw Josiah I respect you too, but trust me I am likewise patient and when the Lord spoke to me it was through the Catholic Bible where I knew of no protestant objection, not until I went to tla pentecostal and like a fool I kept searching in their bible missing books thinking they had a series of malfunctioned bibles they had ordered, seriously

 

[Andrew]

That is simply not true. The canon lists I provided prove your claim is not correct.

1 person?

 

[Andrew]

Before Jerome??

 

[Origen]

1 person?

Hardly!

Before Jerome??

All of them pre-date Jerome's canon list. Jerome gave his list ca. A.D. 391.

 

[Andrew]

Hardly!


All of them pre-date Jerome's canon list. Jerome gave his list ca. A.D. 391.

All three?

 

[Origen]

All three?

No, ALL OF THEM pre-date Jerome's list.

 

[Josiah]

This was never an issue in Christianity until Jesus-REJECTING Jews persuaded a gullible Jerome to forsake Christian tradition, before that we find nothing concerning any of the books of Maccabees in Christianity, if anything it was the opposite

Your still entirely and completely evading the issue. Nothing in that post, my brother has any relation whatsoever to your claim. Claiming someone/something for some reason took OUT of the canon just totally evades the issue of whether they were ever IN.


See posts 275 and 276.

the Lord spoke to me

It's always impossible to challenge this apologetic..... But I remind you that EVERY heretic in history CLAIMED that God just spoke to THEM individually... so they have this special unique personal revelation diretly from God. Brother, I can't respond to that claim you now make. And of course, you can't verify such anymore than Joseph Smith or Jim Jones could do. So, if GOD TOLD just you that one of the Maccabee books is canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God, then YOU know that. But frankly, that doesn't supply any subsfantiation either. That contributes NOTHING to the apologetics here. It may be true - but it supplies nothing at all toward substantiating it as true. Nothing personal, but this is exactly what we say to Mormons, etc.

through the Catholic Bible

I suspect you mean the POST-TRENT unique canon that no other denomination on the planet accepts... the one that does not echo the LXX. You aren't referring to the 1000 years with the Epistle to the Leodiceans would be in that tome, etc. And you of course don't mean the Anglican Bible or the Greek Orthodox Bible or the Coptic Bible or the Syrian Bible or Jerome's Bible, etc,., etc., etc., etc.

But again, because the unique tome you had as a Catholic (one UNIQUE to that singular denomination) was useful to you has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with proof that one of the Maccabee books is (and always has been) embraced by Christianity and Christians as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Luther's Catechism has been every helpful to me... doesn't make it Scripture. The Book of Jude hasn't been overwhelmingly helpful to ME - doesn't prove that ERGO Jude is not the canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words of God - frankly, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with that issue. Nothing. Obviously.


So now, all apologetics are gone... and we now have you claiming that God just directly told you - individually - that one of the Maccabee books is (and always has been) The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God that must be in all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover. Well, brother, you just played the ultimate trump card beause there is no possible response. IF He did, yup - you know (but only you). But insofar as apologetics go, that only serves one purpose: to take the issue of Truth off the table and terminate the discussion.




.

 

[pinacled]

This was never an issue in Christianity until Jesus-REJECTING Jews persuaded a gullible Jerome to forsake Christian tradition, before that we find nothing concerning any of the books of Maccabees in Christianity, if anything it was the opposite

I'm curious about what you are attempting to communicate.
-Jerome was gullible and found nothing about the books of maccabees in Christianity?

-how is the "opposite true" in your closing argument?

Is there another jerome besides what is recorded by historians that is opposite of tradition.

 

[pinacled]

Your still entirely and completely evading the issue. Nothing in that post, my brother has any relation whatsoever to your claim. Claiming someone/something for some reason took OUT of the canon just totally evades the issue of whether they were ever IN.


See posts 275 and 276.







It's always impossible to challenge this apologetic..... But I remind you that EVERY heretic in history CLAIMED that God just spoke to THEM individually... so they have this special unique personal revelation diretly from God. Brother, I can't respond to that claim you now make. And of course, you can't verify such anymore than Joseph Smith or Jim Jones could do. So, if GOD TOLD just you that one of the Maccabee books is canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God, then YOU know that. But frankly, that doesn't supply any subsfantiation either. That contributes NOTHING to the apologetics here. It may be true - but it supplies nothing at all toward substantiating it as true. Nothing personal, but this is exactly what we say to Mormons, etc.






I suspect you mean the POST-TRENT unique canon that no other denomination on the planet accepts... the one that does not echo the LXX. You aren't referring to the 1000 years with the Epistle to the Leodiceans would be in that tome, etc. And you of course don't mean the Anglican Bible or the Greek Orthodox Bible or the Coptic Bible or the Syrian Bible or Jerome's Bible, etc,., etc., etc., etc.

But again, because the unique tome you had as a Catholic (one UNIQUE to that singular denomination) was useful to you has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with proof that one of the Maccabee books is (and always has been) embraced by Christianity and Christians as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Luther's Catechism has been every helpful to me... doesn't make it Scripture. The Book of Jude hasn't been overwhelmingly helpful to ME - doesn't prove that ERGO Jude is not the canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words of God - frankly, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with that issue. Nothing. Obviously.


So now, all apologetics are gone... and we now have you claiming that God just directly told you - individually - that one of the Maccabee books is (and always has been) The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God that must be in all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover. Well, brother, you just played the ultimate trump card beause there is no possible response. IF He did, yup - you know (but only you). But insofar as apologetics go, that only serves one purpose: to take the issue of Truth off the table and terminate the discussion.




.

It seems that @Andrew is focusing on a traditional teaching of infallibility.
A catechism
But where can one find such a catholic tradition?

 

[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.

???????

What is the copywrite and publishers name ?

Have you denied Truth.