Did the Catholics make up the book of 1 Maccabees out of their imagination?

[NathanH83]

I don't wonder so much about whether people read what they write as whether they understand basic logic and logical fallacies.

What logical fallacies do people make? That 1 Maccabees was authored by Catholics, or that there was no Hebrew original? What fallacies do you see in regards to the apocrypha?

 

[Andrew]

Nathan I'm sorry to blow your cover, but obviously no one here gets that you are playing the role of a protestant layman.

The majority of Protestants I run into online actually believe that the Catholics added certain books (so called Apocrypha) to the Bible and they (majority of Protestants online) were taught such by their church.

What Nathan has attempted to do was seek counter arguments from protestants explaining the impossibility that Catholics made these books up/invented them in the 16th century AD.

Atpollard John the baptist was a prophet and so was John the revelator, he was the very last of the Apostles and last of the Prophets and received his prophecy from an Angel.. Also Maccabees records a miracle from God, one so profound that Jesus even celebrated it and Jews today still celebrate it.. but it's just a good history book and not inspired?
It also fulfils the prophecy in Daniel 11 but it's just a good history book and not inspired?

I liked hobies answer, it's straight forward and honest, but if you study the origins of the Pharisees and Sadducees you will find that their Sola Scripture was very different.
The Sadducees ignored the prophets and didn't believe in the resurrection, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection but believed in oral interpretation from priests and not to the "pious reader".. a common Jew was not allowed to interpret or commentate on scripture only the priest could.. The Essenes however could and they were likely the first jewish believers in Christ because they sought out the signs of the Messiah while the other two sects rejected Him completely.
The Samaritans took scripture literally and didn't believe in interpretations.. So which Jews are the protestants using for an example of scripture alone?

Yes the Catholic church had what they would call "false shepherds" and so far it seems the only thing they did away with was the selling of indulgence, they are stuck on tradition..

So to a protestant lay man how could you explain that Catholics did not add extra books while still mandating that they were uninspired Hebrew to greek translations of Sacred scripture until the protestants fixed it later on down the road?

Also why don't protestants preach the same way ante nicene fathers did and use examples from these books? (Common apocrypha, not including Odes)

 

[Albion]

Actually, the current RCC, EOC and OOC tomes are all different. NONE of them agree with each other or the Nathan or with the LXX. .

Yeh, but this is about Maccabees. That is the title of the thread,. And it appeared to me from several of the recent replies that this was the intent of the responses--to claim that Maccabees was invented by the RCC. See Post 41, for example.

 

[atpollard]

Zechariah was the last prophet, huh?
Let’s see what Jesus says about that...


“But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet.” -Matthew 11:9

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”
-Matthew 11:13


Please, do go on telling me how Zechariah was the last prophet....

Because, of course, John the Baptist was not a prophet.....except that Jesus said he was.

[Proverbs 4:7 NKJV] 7 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [Therefore] get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.

• [Matthew 23:34-36 NASB] 34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
• [Luke 11:47-51 NASB] 47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. 48 "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] 49 "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'

Take your complaint up directly with God.

 

[atpollard]

Atpollard John the baptist was a prophet and so was John the revelator

Not an Old Testament prophet ... you know, like the ones that wrote the Old Testament.
What OT book did John the Baptist write that is in the Apocrypha and belongs among the Books of Moses and Daniel and Elijah?

The books written by the Apostle John ARE included in the Bible ... they are in the New Testament and not the Old Testament. That was the whole point of the statement Jesus made concerning Abel and Zechariah. They killed the OT prophets (ending with Zechariah and not Maccabees) and now Jesus was sending NT prophets (beginning with John the Baptist) that they were going to kill just like their fathers killed the OT prophets.

 

[Andrew]

[Proverbs 4:7 NKJV] 7 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [Therefore] get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.

• [Matthew 23:34-36 NASB] 34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
• [Luke 11:47-51 NASB] 47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. 48 "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] 49 "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'

Take your complaint up directly with God.

John the Baptist was a prophet and was martyred before Jesus even said this.. was Abel a prophet? possibly, maybe.. who knows? According to the NT he was one of the three but this does not include all of martyrdom.. for instance Noah wasn't martyred, what exactly do you believe Jesus meant by "blood of the righteous"?
'Martyrdom' or every human being that was recorded in the Old Testament from Abel to Zechariah?

 

[atpollard]

John the Baptist was a prophet and was martyred before Jesus even said this.. was Abel a prophet? possibly, maybe.. who knows? According to the NT he was one of the three but this does not include all of martyrdom.. for instance Noah wasn't martyred, what exactly do you believe Jesus meant by "blood of the righteous"?
'Martyrdom' or every human being that was recorded in the Old Testament from Abel to Zechariah?

I think that by this point what I believe Jesus meant (right or wrong) should be obvious and has no need to be repeated yet again.

Where does the blood of those slain in Maccabees fall in “from Abel to Zechariah”?

• Before Abel?
• After Abel and before Zechariah?
• After Zechariah?

So what does that say about Maccabees (if anything)?

 

[Andrew]

"The blood of the righteous" = 'Martyrdom' in the context and exegesis of these verses... Jesus was not secretly setting up canon of scripture, if so why did he 'add' "and recovery of site to the blind" when quoting Isaiah and why did no one there correct Him?

It's in our LXX, not in the Masoretic.. must mean that our New Testament is altered or that Jews 2000 years ago didn't really attempt to memorize or recognize scripture if they allowed Jesus to misquote or "add" to Isaiah and not rebuke him for it.

Jesus healed the blind, maybe that's why he quoted "...and recovery of sight to the blind" instead of something about 'prisoners in a dungeon'.. which is somewhat similar if you play around with it, but closer to no cigar when attempting to witness to the unbelieving Jews of the 'Messianic prophesies' in the first century.
Just sayin'
@atpollard

(Sorry tapatalk is acting up)

 

[atpollard]

It's in our LXX, not in the Masoretic

Your LXX or Masoretic, not mine.
I don’t read EITHER Greek or Hebrew and my NIV and NASB translations are not based on either the LXX or the Masoretic texts.

I got no dog in THAT fight.

 

[atpollard]

"The blood of the righteous" = 'Martyrdom' in the context and exegesis of these verses... Jesus was not secretly setting up canon of scripture

Fine.
Then on the subject of martyrdom ...

Where does the blood of those slain in Maccabees fall in “from Abel to Zechariah”? (rhetorical)

• Before Abel? (No.)
• After Abel and before Zechariah? (No.)
• After Zechariah? (Yes)

So what does that say about Maccabees (if anything)?

 

[Andrew]

Fine.
Then on the subject of martyrdom ...

Where does the blood of those slain in Maccabees fall in “from Abel to Zechariah”? (rhetorical)

• Before Abel? (No.)
• After Abel and before Zechariah? (No.)
• After Zechariah? (Yes)

So what does that say about Maccabees (if anything)?

What about all the books that don't contain a martyr in our OT? They should be thrown out?
Was Noah killed by God's enemy? Job?
No?
So also Judas Maccabee was not recorded as a martyr either, it doesn't mean he was not righteous for he BELIEVED in the RESURRECTION of Christ to come!
Abel was martyred, Zechariah even, but was Noah, a righteous man, martyred? No.
You are attempting to paint a picture that from Abel to Zechariah ALL of the righteous were martyred.. That's not the case, neither should be Judas Maccabee for he was strengthened by God and the Maccabean revolt ended in a miracle that even Jesus himself acknowledged and recognised as such.

 

[Andrew]

Again, Judas Maccabee was not a martyr, Jesus is clearly expressing the sacrifices of those slain for the word in relation to His final and ultimate atonement for all of the righteous

 

[NathanH83]

[Proverbs 4:7 NKJV] 7 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [Therefore] get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.

• [Matthew 23:34-36 NASB] 34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
• [Luke 11:47-51 NASB] 47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. 48 "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] 49 "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'

Take your complaint up directly with God.

You claimed that Zechariah was the last prophet. But those scriptures do NOT say that Zechariah was the last prophet. You still have no scripture to back up your claim.

Jesus was saying that His generation would be guilty of all the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah.

Where does that statement insinuate that Zechariah is the last prophet?

If I say that special honor is due to ALL the soldiers who fought for this country, from the Revolutionary War up to the war in Vietnam.....is this statement insinuating that the war in Vietnam is the last American war? No. I’m insinuating that special honor is due to soldiers who fought in all the wars UP TO THAT TIME. It’s simply saying “every war from here to there.” It’s not insinuating that the Vietnam war is the last. And it’s not insinuating that soldiers who fought in other wars that took place after Vietnam don’t deserve honor.

When Jesus said ALL the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah, that statement in no way insinuates that Zechariah is the last prophet. If he was insinuating that, then there would be no prophets after him. But even you yourself admitted that John the Baptist is a New Testament prophet. So even you contradict yourself by saying that Zechariah is NOT the last prophet, but just the last Old Testament prophet (even though John the Baptist came before Jesus’ ministry, and therefore before the start of the New Covenant - and Jesus’ generation was guilty of John’s death too).

You are rehashing the arguments of unbelieving Jews, who want you to believe that the time of the prophets stopped around the time of Ezra and Zechariah, and therefore Jesus and John the baptist cannot be prophets, and therefore the New Testament cannot be scripture.

These arguments of yours are the arguments of unbelieving Jews in their attempt to discredit the New Testament.

 

[Josiah]

It's in our LXX

"OUR LXX?" What does that mean? And so what?

There is not one denomination on the entire planet Earth whose Bible is the LXX (not even a Jewish one) and NEVER HAS BEEN, never. Yes, there was a general, informal, unofficial TRANSLATION of religious books into Greek since Hebrew had become a "dead language" that no Jews spoke and few even knew, a translation was needed. It was not an authorized or official translation (we actually know NOTHING about how it came to be, just some myths from CENTURIES later) and ZERO reason to hold that the books included (and only those) were considered by all Jews as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice, ONLY that these were books Jews seem to like access to in a language they could read. That's it. That's all.

Jews 2000 years ago didn't really attempt to memorize or recognize scripture if they allowed Jesus to misquote or "add" to Isaiah and not rebuke him for it.

Again, Judaism did NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - concerning the issue of what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every way equal the Books of Moses. Nothing at all. Until 90 AD (that's A.D. ) , after Jesus' ascension, after the death of all the Apostles (except maybe John), after Christianity was largely a separate religion and no longer considered a sect within Judaism. The FIRST TIME in all the history of the planet that Judaism did ANYTHING about this was THEIR official, authoritative meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD. When for the first time, Judaism put things into their canon. And it's authoritative, offical. binding nature is obvious since all other books simply were forgotten among Jews. It did not include books you and Nathan say it should have put in. True, since Christianity was by then mostly a separate religion that did not abide by the JEWISH Council at Jamnia, it seems to have had little influence among Christians. But it is simply an undenial historic FACT that JUDAISM did NOTHING about this issue before 90 AD. Now, SOME individual JEWS used the book of Odes for something as something before then but that has nothing to do with what JUDAISM did or did not do, certainly not in terms of what is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.




.

 

[NathanH83]

"OUR LXX?" What does that mean? And so what?

There is not one denomination on the entire planet Earth whose Bible is the LXX (not even a Jewish one) and NEVER HAS BEEN, never. Yes, there was a general, informal, unofficial TRANSLATION of religious books into Greek since Hebrew had become a "dead language" that no Jews spoke and few even knew, a translation was needed. It was not an authorized or official translation (we actually know NOTHING about how it came to be, just some myths from CENTURIES later) and ZERO reason to hold that the books included (and only those) were considered by all Jews as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice, ONLY that these were books Jews seem to like access to in a language they could read. That's it. That's all.







Again, Judaism did NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - concerning the issue of what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every way equal the Books of Moses. Nothing at all. Until 90 AD (that's A.D. ) , after Jesus' ascension, after the death of all the Apostles (except maybe John), after Christianity was largely a separate religion and no longer considered a sect within Judaism. The FIRST TIME in all the history of the planet that Judaism did ANYTHING about this was THEIR official, authoritative meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD. When for the first time, Judaism put things into their canon. And it's authoritative, offical. binding nature is obvious since all other books simply were forgotten among Jews. It did not include books you and Nathan say it should have put in. True, since Christianity was by then mostly a separate religion that did not abide by the JEWISH Council at Jamnia, it seems to have had little influence among Christians. But it is simply an undenial historic FACT that JUDAISM did NOTHING about this issue before 90 AD. Now, SOME individual JEWS used the book of Odes for something as something before then but that has nothing to do with what JUDAISM did or did not do, certainly not in terms of what is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.




.

Jews in Israel knew Hebrew.

 

[atpollard]

Where does that statement insinuate that Zechariah is the last prophet?

Nothing was insinuated.

“... so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'” [Luke 11:50-51]

Jesus came right out and said it.
Zechariah was the last prophet whose blood was shed that would be charged against that generation.
Jesus specifically excluded all of the ’martyrs‘ in Maccabees as ‘prophets’ (one who speaks for God) and whose blood would be charged against the unbelieving generation for rejecting the Messiah and killing the Saints.

How can YOU claim that Maccabees speaks for God as “God breathed holy scripture” when JESUS denies that Maccabees was a prophet (one that speaks for God)?

That is how this ties to the OP.
No, the Catholics did not invent Maccabees, the Hellenistic Jews wrote Maccabees. The Catholics are just one of the groups that mistakes a history book for inspired scripture.

 

[Andrew]

Nothing was insinuated.

“... so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'” [Luke 11:50-51]

Jesus came right out and said it.
Zechariah was the last prophet whose blood was shed that would be charged against that generation.
Jesus specifically excluded all of the ’martyrs‘ in Maccabees as ‘prophets’ (one who speaks for God) and whose blood would be charged against the unbelieving generation for rejecting the Messiah and killing the Saints.

How can YOU claim that Maccabees speaks for God as “God breathed holy scripture” when JESUS denies that Maccabees was a prophet (one that speaks for God)?

That is how this ties to the OP.
No, the Catholics did not invent Maccabees, the Hellenistic Jews wrote Maccabees. The Catholics are just one of the groups that mistakes a history book for inspired scripture.

...and not just the Catholics but some of the early church fathers too..

Was John the Baptist a martyr or prophet? or both?

 

[Andrew]

Nothing was insinuated.

“... so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'” [Luke 11:50-51]

Jesus came right out and said it.
Zechariah was the last prophet whose blood was shed that would be charged against that generation.
Jesus specifically excluded all of the ’martyrs‘ in Maccabees as ‘prophets’ (one who speaks for God) and whose blood would be charged against the unbelieving generation for rejecting the Messiah and killing the Saints.

How can YOU claim that Maccabees speaks for God as “God breathed holy scripture” when JESUS denies that Maccabees was a prophet (one that speaks for God)?

That is how this ties to the OP.
No, the Catholics did not invent Maccabees, the Hellenistic Jews wrote Maccabees. The Catholics are just one of the groups that mistakes a history book for inspired scripture.

Also I thought Moses represented the Law and Elijah represented the prophets at the transfiguration.. was Jesus declaring canon here too?

 

[atpollard]

...and not just the Catholics but some of the early church fathers too.

None of the ECF published official lists of cannon, only Church denominations create lists of cannon to include or exclude books from. The ECF just quote from books in letters.

Was John the Baptist a martyr or prophet? or both?

You do realize that I did not write the Gospel of Luke, don’t you. I just told you what Jesus said. If Luke misquoted God, then you will need to take it up with Luke or God.

What does any of this have to do with Maccabees?

 

[atpollard]

Also I thought Moses represented the Law and Elijah represented the prophets at the transfiguration

So do I.

was Jesus declaring canon here too?

Not as far as I know. If he was, then Jesus excluded the third part ... the Writings (which come after the Law and the Prophets) including books like Kings and Chronicles and Psalms.

These also seem to have nothing to do with Maccabee.