A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[NathanH83]

...which doesn't explain why you imagine that Hebrews affirms an Apocryphal writing as being divine revelation simply because it makes a reference to the contents of that Apocryphal book.

Huh?

Context, bro. Hebrews 11 is clearly talking about Biblical history all throughout the chapter. A child in grade school can understand context.

 

[NathanH83]

Quote where I claimed anyone did.


It's beyond strange that you demand I substantiate claims I never made.... while you refuse the substantiate the many claims you have made.

Here's just a short list of some of those....

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism, what it says is therefore what Protestantism says.

Jude states that the Book of Enoch is Scripture....

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more...



.

What exactly are you trying to say? Can you speak plain English?

I don’t speak Lorem Ipsum.

 

[NathanH83]

Quote where I claimed anyone did.


It's beyond strange that you demand I substantiate claims I never made.... while you refuse the substantiate the many claims you have made.

Here's just a short list of some of those....

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism, what it says is therefore what Protestantism says.

Jude states that the Book of Enoch is Scripture....

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more...



.

Why don’t you go talk to someone else in another conversion about another topic? You just copy and paste the same dogma over and over. We’ve already heard it from you hundreds of times, and we don’t need to keep hearing it again and again. Let other people talk for a change. I’d like to hear from people who don’t just copy and paste the same stuff over and over. You’re not really being much of a conversationalist. You’re not engaging in dialogue. You’re just copying and pasting the same thing. It’s what they call “trolling”. And it’s not edifying.

 

[NathanH83]

The Book of Macabees was well known by the Early church. It was considered a historical book by the Jews that accurately related the Maccabean revolt. Whoever wrote Hebrews was writing to Jewish Christians. It is therefore logical for the writer of Hebrews to invoke Jewish History and historical figures that were well know by the Jews.

Historically, Protestants admit that the books are good to read and contain historical truth. The writer of Hebrews apparently agreed. The fact that the writer of Hebrews alluded to a historical event in Jewish History does not mean that he thought the book that that event was recording in is "God Breathed Scripture".

Making an allusion to non-canonical books does not mean that the writer thought that book as Canonical Scripture. The New Testament writers used all kinds of cultural, historical, and religious material in order to show people their need for Christ.

If that is your standard then you have to include the Book of Enoch (Jude) the Assumption of Moses (2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9), and the Apocalypse of Moses (2 Cor 11:14 and 12:2) as Biblical Text. They were all books that were read in the 1st Century and were all alluded to by New Testament writers. However, I don't see anyone going around claiming those books are inspired scripture. Most would agree that they are cultural/historical references that would have been familiar to the reader. Not an endorsement that those books are scripture.

The context of Hebrews 11 tells me that the author of Hebrews considered 2 Maccabees as scripture, since verse 35 references the tortured men right alongside the rest of biblical figures. No honest person would think differently (hence, you’re not honest).

And yes, the New Testament also references the book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Martyrdom of Isaiah -all referenced as scripture in the New Testament. Even Justin Martyr acknowledged in his writings that the Martyrdom of Isaiah was a part of the Bible before the Jews deleted it. That explains why Hebrews 11 mentions those who were sawn in two. It’s a reference to how Isaiah died.

Also, if Protestants really believe that the Apocrypha is “good to read” then why did they lobby the Bible societies to stop using their money to print Bibles that include the Apocrypha? They apparently must have thought it was bad to read if they worked so hard to stop it from being printed.

Does it really make sense for someone to say, “It’s good to read! We’re just going to hinder anyone from using their money to print it! But it’s good to read!”

That’s clearly not honest. The Protestants who lobbied to remove it clearly did NOT believe it was good to read.

 

[NathanH83]

No. As you yourself proved, it never mentions ANY book - 2 Maccabees or any other. It MAY refer to an EVENT, a historical EVENT, which 2 Maccabees also speaks, but it's an EVENT that it alludes to, not a book, not any book.

And just because it alludes to an EVENT does not mean that therefore anything that also alludes to that event must ergo be holy Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and that some grand international law thus mandates that all such books be included in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover.





Another claim... with NOTHING WHATSOEVER offered to substantiate it.






.

This response is nonsense. You and I both know that the vast majority of New Testament references to the Old Testament almost never mention the exact book they come from. This is why it’s a waste of time talking to you, because you don’t respond with anything honest to say. Your logic defies all common sense. Even a Kindergartner should be able to see straight through your lies and dishonesty.

 

[Lanman87]

The context of Hebrews 11 tells me that the author of Hebrews considered 2 Maccabees as scripture,

He was giving a history of people of faith, not a history Old Testament scriptures. Not every faithful person was recorded in Scriptures and there were faithful people after the scriptures were written. So yes, I honestly think that is what he is doing. You are reading your "context" into your presupposed opinion.

Also, if Protestants really believe that the Apocrypha is “good to read” then why did they lobby the Bible societies to stop using their money to print Bibles that include the Apocrypha?

You are confusing American Evangelicals with Protestants. All American Evangelicals are Protestant (not Catholic or EO) but not all Protestants are American Evangelicals. Anglicans are still very friendly with the Duetero books. So are Lutherans.

 

[Lanman87]

And yes, the New Testament also references the book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Martyrdom of Isaiah -all referenced as scripture in the New Testament.

So should those books be in our canon as well?

 

[NathanH83]

So should those books be in our canon as well?

If the New Testament writers are referencing them, then they clearly expected their audience to have read them. Therefore, we should also read them.

 

[NathanH83]

He was giving a history of people of faith, not a history Old Testament scriptures. Not every faithful person was recorded in Scriptures and there were faithful people after the scriptures were written. So yes, I honestly think that is what he is doing. You are reading your "context" into your presupposed opinion.

You are confusing American Evangelicals with Protestants. All American Evangelicals are Protestant (not Catholic or EO) but not all Protestants are American Evangelicals. Anglicans are still very friendly with the Duetero books. So are Lutherans.

That’s a double standard. Everything in Hebrews 11 is a reference to old Testament Biblical history….oh, except for this one section of a verse where we’re going to pull it out of context and say that it’s “just history”. But the rest of it is referencing Holy scripture. But Maccabees is “just history” even though the Early church called 2 Maccabees holy scripture.

Double standard. Completely illogical.

Clearly the author of a Hebrews EXPECTS his audience to be familiar with the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Why would we take that out of our Bibles? This is an injustice against Christianity. This is a CRIME against the church to remove that part of Biblical history.

 

[Albion]

Double standard. Completely illogical.

Clearly the author of a Hebrews EXPECTS his audience to be familiar with the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

That still makes it a reference to known historical facts, not divine revelation--just as you were told.

The context of Hebrews 11 tells me that the author of Hebrews considered 2 Maccabees as scripture,

But you are correct here when indicating that it's YOUR PREFERENCE that you are advocating for, not the content of the writing itself.

You would like it to be the case that the uninspired writings really are Scripture, so as you said here you choose to claim that they are.

That's all these several threads on the same subject and promoted by the same posters amount to.

 

[NathanH83]

That still makes it a reference to known historical facts, not divine revelation--just as you were told.

That’s not what the context suggests. The idea that it’s “just history” and “not holy scripture” is your own idea that you’re imposing onto the text. But that’s not what the context of Hebrews 11 suggests.

The fact that so many in the early church reference Maccabees as holy scripture, this tells us that there was a tradition handed down by the disciples. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the disciples accepted Maccabees as scripture. That’s why the early church accepted Maccabees as holy scripture too. And Hebrews 11:35 only confirms what the early church declared, that Maccabees is part of the Holy Bible.

Thus, the Jews BEFORE Christ accepted Maccabees as part of the Bible. But Jews AFTER Christ deleted Maccabees from the Bible. But even though the Jews rejected it, the church clung to the teachings of the disciples.

Your belief that Maccabees is “just history” is just a belief of modern Judaism, and inconsistent with the beliefs of the early church handed down by the disciples of Jesus.

The Apocryphal books were in the ORIGINAL Bible of the Jews. But after the time of Christ the unbelieving Jews took them out.

 

[NathanH83]

That still makes it a reference to known historical facts, not divine revelation--just as you were told.



But you are correct here when indicating that it's YOUR PREFERENCE that you are advocating for, not the content of the writing itself.

You would like it to be the case that the uninspired writings really are Scripture, so as you said here you choose to claim that they are.

That's all these several threads on the same subject and promoted by the same posters amount to.

Origen de Principiis book 2 ch 1.5 (185- 254ad)

"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist."

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

Origen believed that 2 Maccabees is holy scripture. Ask yourself, what CAUSED him to believe that?

The church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared 2 Maccabees to be “divine, canonical scripture” in the 380’s and 390’s.
What CAUSED them to believe that? Where did this tradition come from?

Hebrews 11:35 only confirms what the early church declared.

 

[Lanman87]

Clearly the author of a Hebrews EXPECTS his audience to be familiar with the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

I agree. Maccabees was a Jewish History book that Jews would be familiar with. If you were a Hellenist Jew you probably thought it was scripture. If you were a Palestinian Jew, probably not. Hebrews was written to Jewish converts in the 1st Century. The Old Testament records Jewish History till a certain point, but not the inter-testament period.

What CAUSED them to believe that? Where did this tradition come from?

There was a mixed tradition in the early church. If you were a Christian in the 2nd Century you may or may not have been taught that Macabees is Scripture, depending on who your Bishop was and where you lived.

Augustine was the catalyst that caused the councils of Hippo and Rome to say they are part of the canon. Augustine was hugely influential in the 4th Century Church and those councils followed his lead.

 

[Lanman87]

Thus, the Jews BEFORE Christ accepted Maccabees as part of the Bible.

That is debatable. I would say that the Greek Jews who translated the LXX added the books to their "Bible" and the Jews in Palestine who were fluent in Hebrew took them back out. They corrected the error of the Greek translators, who may or may not have included them as "Scripture".

 

[Albion]

It is well-known that the Jews in certain parts of the Roman Empire considered these books to be inspired while the Jews in other areas of the Empire did not. And this was the case both before and after Christ established his church, so "the Jews believed" is a claim that settles nothing other than that the claim when stated that way is false.

 

[Josiah]

Your logic defies all common sense. Even a Kindergartner should be able to see straight through your lies and dishonesty.

Here's what I said:

No. As you yourself proved, it never mentions ANY book - 2 Maccabees or any other. It MAY refer to an EVENT, a historical EVENT, which 2 Maccabees also speaks, but it's an EVENT that it alludes to, not a book, not any book.

And just because it alludes to an EVENT does not mean that therefore anything that also alludes to that event must ergo be holy Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and that some grand international law thus mandates that all such books be included in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover.

You argued that because the author of Hebrews references a BOOK, therefore that BOOK is Scripture. Problem is, he doesn't reference a book (as you yourself proved!), he alludes to an EVENT. You assume he knew of that event from 2 Maccabees (and that's possible) but he says NOTHING about the book, he seems to allude to an EVENT that is mentioned in 2 Maccabees. Your statement is wrong. Even a kindergartner is able to see right through your dishonesty, your false claim.

New Testament also references the book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Martyrdom of Isaiah

Another false claim. NOWHERE in the NT are those books so much as mentioned, much less referred to. Any kindergartner can see right through that false claim.

And of course, the Bible DOES reference, by NAME, specifically and verbatim, several books you don't accept as canonical (they've been listed to you many times, complete with a verse where one is specifically named). So, since you don't accept a book just because it IS referenced, why should we accept a book that (as you've proven) is NOT referenced?



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not see why Jewish beliefs matter for this topic.

 

[Origen]

Here's what I said:

You argued that because the author of Hebrews references a BOOK, therefore that BOOK is Scripture. Problem is, he doesn't reference a book (as you yourself proved!), he alludes to an EVENT. You assume he knew of that event from 2 Maccabees (and that's possible) but he says NOTHING about the book, he seems to allude to an EVENT that is mentioned in 2 Maccabees. Your statement is wrong. Even a kindergartner is able to see right through your dishonesty, your false claim.

Another false claim. NOWHERE in the NT are those books so much as mentioned, much less referred to. Any kindergartner can see right through that false claim.

And of course, the Bible DOES reference, by NAME, specifically and verbatim, several books you don't accept as canonical (they've been listed to you many times, complete with a verse where one is specifically named). So, since you don't accept a book just because it IS referenced, why should we accept a book that (as you've proven) is NOT referenced?

 

[Josiah]

That’s a double standard. Everything in Hebrews 11 is a reference to old Testament Biblical history….

@NathanH83


But not every book mentioning history is therefore a canonical book. Any kindergartner knows that.

And to allude to an EVENT in history is not to declare that any book that mentions that event is therefore Holy Scripture. Any kindergartner is smart enough to realize that.

though the Early church called 2 Maccabees holy scripture.

We're still waiting for the substantiation for that claim (and about a dozen more like it).


Yes, you can quote 3 or 4 (maybe even 10!) INDIVIDUAL PERSONS who state that some books like Psalm 151, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and more are "HOLY SCRIPTURE" and even list such among others. But, as any kindergartner knows, there were more than 3 or 4 (or even 10) Christians before 400 AD.... 4 Christians does not make the early church. Any kindergartner sees the absurdity of your claim.

Yes, you can quote from 3 regional synods that include SOME books beyond "the 66." But as you've already admitted, they were not Ecumenical Councils so they were not actions of the early church but rather a small part of such... and we know from history, those councils had little to no impact on what was considered Scripture - the churches of the East paid it no attention at all (they still don't).

Clearly the author of a Hebrews EXPECTS his audience to be familiar with the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Why would we take that out of our Bibles?

I won't contest that the author expects his audience to know about the Maccabee revolt. But any kindergartner knows that's unrelated to books mentioning it ergo are canonical Scripture. That's entirely baseless and irrational. As any kindergartner knows.

Origen believed that 2 Maccabees is holy scripture.

He also accepted the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews. But you don't accept those. So, any kindergartner realizes your "double standard" and illogic; any kindergartner would say "But if one book is Holy Scripture because Origen said so, then why not accept all the books he said were Scripture?" And you'd be silenced.




.

 

[Josiah]

What exactly are you trying to say? Can you speak plain English?

@NathanH83


I did, but to make it so a kindergartner fully gets it....


Here's what was posted to me:

Josiah, quote one single mention in the NT where anyone names the title of an Old Testament book,

Here is my reply:

Quote where I claimed anyone did.

Because, of course, I never made a claim about the NT naming OT books.


Then I added:

It's beyond strange that you demand I substantiate claims I never made.... while you refuse the substantiate the many claims you have made.

You see, Andy wanted me to substantiate a claim I never made.... while he won't substantiate claims he has made. True, he says he has "retracted" 2 of them (great!!!) but retracting, while admirable, isn't substantiating.


Can you follow that?




.