Question about Hebrews 11?

[NathanH83]

Does the context of the chapter insinuate that the tortured men in verse 35 is a story that should be in the Bible?

 

[Spindle4]

Does the context of the chapter insinuate that the tortured men in verse 35 is a story that should be in the Bible?

No.

The epistle to the Hebrews does not contain any insinuations.

There are 5 distinct warnings in this book originally given to the ekklesia in Rome to counter the subverting of the Gospel by Judaisers, but applicable to Christians everywhere at any time.

1. Give heed to what is spoken concerning the Son. ( Heb 2:1-4 )
2. Do not come short of the promised rest. ( Heb 3:7-4:13 )
3. Be brought on to maturity. (Heb 5:11-6:20 )
4. Come forward to the Holy of Holies and do not shrink back to Judaism. ( Heb 10:19-39 )
5. Run the race and do not fall away from grace. ( Heb 12: 1-29 )

ALL SCRIPTURE is God-breathed and is useful for -

• DOCTRINE
• REPROOF
• CORRECTION
• INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS

( 2 Tim 3:16 )

 

[NathanH83]

No.

The epistle to the Hebrews does not contain any insinuations.

There are 5 distinct warnings in this book originally given to the ekklesia in Rome to counter the subverting of the Gospel by Judaisers, but applicable to Christians everywhere at any time.

1. Give heed to what is spoken concerning the Son. ( Heb 2:1-4 )
2. Do not come short of the promised rest. ( Heb 3:7-4:13 )
3. Be brought on to maturity. (Heb 5:11-6:20 )
4. Come forward to the Holy of Holies and do not shrink back to Judaism. ( Heb 10:19-39 )
5. Run the race and do not fall away from grace. ( Heb 12: 1-29 )

ALL SCRIPTURE is God-breathed and is useful for -

• DOCTRINE
• REPROOF
• CORRECTION
• INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS

( 2 Tim 3:16 )

Seems to me though that everything else mentioned in Hebrews 11 is from the Bible

 

[Spindle4]

Seems to me though that everything else mentioned in Hebrews 11 is from the Bible

Yes, well there is no requirement that all NT disclosures be mentioned in the OT.

 

[Josiah]

Does the context of the chapter insinuate that the tortured men in verse 35 is a story that should be in the Bible?

No




.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

Hebrews 11 is clearly referencing the Maccabean martyrs. Anyone who says differently is either lying or in denial. And Maccabees is already in the Bible, and has been declared to be scripture by the Holy Catholic Church, which is the one true church.

 

[Awaiting Transport]

The book of Hebrews was written to the Jews of the day (as well as now, 1900+ years later) that did/do not believe Jesus is the promised Messiah. It's commonly thought that Paul, a 'super Jew' that was a Pharisee (very well educated in the Torah and OT, usually rich, etc) wrote this book to the Jews. As he wrote in Romans 1 and 2, 'to the Jew first'. So he did not abandon his immediately following the road to Damascus experience and go to the Gentiles. He didn't meet with Jesus in Arabia until some years later (about 40 AD, as far as I can tell) and be given the revelation of his going to the Gentiles. So in the intervening time, he'd go from town to town preaching Jesus IS the promised messiah, exactly as Peter had confirmed by his faith -

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (KJV)

There's nothing about the Gospel as believers in Christ per 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in Hebrews. In Hebrews, Paul repeatedly writes 'but now there is a better <whatever>, pointing to Jesus. Paul also refers to the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which will take place when Jesus comes to establish His Kingdom after the promised 70th week of Daniel, ie, 7 year tribulation referenced in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and, of course, Revelation as well as Daniel, Ezekiel and other places.

Getting to your question...Hebrews 11 is considered the 'faith' chapter in which Paul writes of the power of faith and the great things God has done for the faithful. But verses 33-38 show both the good things as well as the bad things that can happen to the faithful. The same is true today. Christians are still being persecuted for their faith and, speaking from personal experience, have had great things happen to them in response to prayer.

Heb 11:33-40 (KJV)
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

As Joshua1eight indicated above, the torture is in Maccabees. As to why Maccabees and the rest of the Apocrypha is not part of non-Catholic Bibles, I can only repeat what I have read. Back when the Bible was 'being assembled', those putting it all together decided what potential books were clearly inspired by God and which ones weren't. How they could make such decisions, I don't know.

But I do know that the 66 books that comprise the Bible today are far more than enough to lead its readers to salvation. I'm one of them. 23 years ago, while in a major, near suicidal depression, a Christian friend at work gave me a Gideon Bible (NT, Psalms & Proverbs only) that I hungrily read from cover to cover. I was saved exactly 1 week after I finished it! My friend answered my questions along the way, but other than putting Gods' Word in my hand, did not evangelize me. It was a traveling evangelist at the church where I am still a member that made Gods' Word fully 'click' in my heart!

 

[NathanH83]

Hebrews 11 is clearly referencing the Maccabean martyrs. Anyone who says differently is either lying or in denial. And Maccabees is already in the Bible, and has been declared to be scripture by the Holy Catholic Church, which is the one true church.

Thank you

 

[NathanH83]

The book of Hebrews was written to the Jews of the day (as well as now, 1900+ years later) that did/do not believe Jesus is the promised Messiah. It's commonly thought that Paul, a 'super Jew' that was a Pharisee (very well educated in the Torah and OT, usually rich, etc) wrote this book to the Jews. As he wrote in Romans 1 and 2, 'to the Jew first'. So he did not abandon his immediately following the road to Damascus experience and go to the Gentiles. He didn't meet with Jesus in Arabia until some years later (about 40 AD, as far as I can tell) and be given the revelation of his going to the Gentiles. So in the intervening time, he'd go from town to town preaching Jesus IS the promised messiah, exactly as Peter had confirmed by his faith -

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (KJV)

There's nothing about the Gospel as believers in Christ per 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in Hebrews. In Hebrews, Paul repeatedly writes 'but now there is a better , pointing to Jesus. Paul also refers to the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which will take place when Jesus comes to establish His Kingdom after the promised 70th week of Daniel, ie, 7 year tribulation referenced in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and, of course, Revelation as well as Daniel, Ezekiel and other places.

Getting to your question...Hebrews 11 is considered the 'faith' chapter in which Paul writes of the power of faith and the great things God has done for the faithful. But verses 33-38 show both the good things as well as the bad things that can happen to the faithful. The same is true today. Christians are still being persecuted for their faith and, speaking from personal experience, have had great things happen to them in response to prayer.

Heb 11:33-40 (KJV)
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

As Joshua1eight indicated above, the torture is in Maccabees. As to why Maccabees and the rest of the Apocrypha is not part of non-Catholic Bibles, I can only repeat what I have read. Back when the Bible was 'being assembled', those putting it all together decided what potential books were clearly inspired by God and which ones weren't. How they could make such decisions, I don't know.

But I do know that the 66 books that comprise the Bible today are far more than enough to lead its readers to salvation. I'm one of them. 23 years ago, while in a major, near suicidal depression, a Christian friend at work gave me a Gideon Bible (NT, Psalms & Proverbs only) that I hungrily read from cover to cover. I was saved exactly 1 week after I finished it! My friend answered my questions along the way, but other than putting Gods' Word in my hand, did not evangelize me. It was a traveling evangelist at the church where I am still a member that made Gods' Word fully 'click' in my heart!

There’s 3 early church councils who accepted Maccabees as scripture, and 1 that did not. How on Earth you think the 1 got it right and the 3 got it wrong, I really don’t know.

 

[Josiah]

There’s 3 early church councils who accepted Maccabees as scripture, and 1 that did not. How on Earth you think the 1 got it right and the 3 got it wrong, I really don’t know.

1. You don't accept such councils as authoritative. Thus it is hypocritical for you to insist others do.

2. The 3 meetings of which you allude were NOT authoritative, ecumenical meetings. They were obscure, regional, meetings of local WESTERN dioceses. They were not "church" councils since the church did not regard them as... anything at all.

3. Irrelevant: Hebrews never mentions any of the 4 books of Maccabees - as Scripture or as anything whatsoever. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever to even suggest that the unknown author had ever even heard of any of these 4 books.




.

 

[NathanH83]

1. You don't accept such councils as authoritative. Thus it is hypocritical for you to insist others do.

2. The 3 meetings of which you allude were NOT authoritative, ecumenical meetings. They were obscure, regional, meetings of local WESTERN dioceses. They were not "church" councils since the church did not regard them as... anything at all.

3. Irrelevant: Hebrews never mentions any of the 4 books of Maccabees - as Scripture or as anything whatsoever. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever to even suggest that the unknown author had ever even heard of any of these 4 books.




.

The fact that they were not ecumenical gives them even more credibility. It wasn’t the Pope forcing everyone to make the same decision. But rather, it was 3 separate church meetings, independently of one another coming to the same conclusion.

But if you think that the council of Laodicea got it right, then that wasn’t ecumenical either, so your point is moot.

Point is, there were more Christians accepting them than rejecting them.

 

[Josiah]

The fact that they were not ecumenical

1. The fact that YOU don't accept diocean meetings of the Western Catholic Church as authoritative means that it's very hypocritical for YOU to demand that everyone else do what you don't.

2. So you agree it was NOT a decision of the church, but decisions of 3 dioceses of the Western, Latin Catholic Church (and even that not authoritative).

Point is, there were more Christians accepting them than rejecting them.

Give your proof that at least 51% of all Christians in the world accepted 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees as the inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. You won't for one very simple reason: you can't. We have no data whatsoever on what percentage of Christians believed, accepted or did things. You statement here - like nearly all your claims - is pure speculation on your part.


We don't know who the unknown author of Hebrews may be thinking of here for one undeniable reason: He doesn't say. I realize you seem to hold that YOU personally and individually are an inerrant mind reader but you've offered nothing to support that. And even if this unknown person was thinking of something recorded in 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees has NO RELEVANCE whatsoever to such a book ergo being the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You know that. We all know that.




.

 

[NathanH83]

1. The fact that YOU don't accept diocean meetings of the Western Catholic Church as authoritative means that it's very hypocritical for YOU to demand that everyone else do what you don't.

2. So you agree it was NOT a decision of the church, but decisions of 3 dioceses of the Western, Latin Catholic Church (and even that not authoritative).





Give your proof that at least 51% of all Christians in the world accepted 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees as the inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. You won't for one very simple reason: you can't. We have no data whatsoever on what percentage of Christians believed, accepted or did things. You statement here - like nearly all your claims - is pure speculation on your part.


We don't know who the unknown author of Hebrews may be thinking of here for one undeniable reason: He doesn't say. I realize you seem to hold that YOU personally and individually are an inerrant mind reader but you've offered nothing to support that. And even if this unknown person was thinking of something recorded in 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees has NO RELEVANCE whatsoever to such a book ergo being the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You know that. We all know that.




.

3 councils vs 1 council. Pretty sure that’s more than 50%. In fact, I think that’s 75%. Unless you know of more councils we could include.

 

[Josiah]

3 councils vs 1 council. Pretty sure that’s more than 50%. In fact, I think that’s 75%. Unless you know of more councils we could include.

What "1 council?"

Yes, there were 3 obscure, minor, non-authoritative meetings of 3 dioceses of the Western, Latin Catholic Church that embraced SOME of the Maccabee books in SOME (unstated) way. But you don't accept as authoritative such meetings - at all, for anything - so it's just the height of hypocrisy to demand that WE accepted such - but ONLY these 3 and ONLY on one point. Absurd. Silly. Hypocritical.

There were no Ecumenical Councils on this subject. None. So there are none to quote - for or against 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees or Psalm151 or the Epistle to the Leodiceans or the Book of Mormon. NO Ecumenical Council even mentioned any of these., much less officially endorsed such as the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. YES, they were used by SOME Christians in SOME ways... yes they were included in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover, but the church never endorsed them - NONE of the 7 Ecumenical Councils acted on them, at all, for anything. Sorry, it's just reality.

Now, if YOU want to read 4 Maccabees or Psalm 152 or the Epistle to the Leodiceans or To Kill a Mockingbird that's ALLOWED, you are welcome to do so... and if a publishing house wants to include To Kill a Mockingbird in a tome with BIBLE written on the cover, it is allowed to do so. But it is BASELESS for you to insist the church declared such books to be the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God that legally must be included in any book that happens to have the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Your obsession is just silly and wrong. And your insistence on continuing it just proves your unwillingness or inability to deal with reality.




.