Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[Josiah]

my point is that the majority of Septuagint readers of the time contained the books of Maccabees

THUS, you admit, you have NO WAY TO KNOW if Timothy ever read First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees...

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW if Timothy or his parents or Paul considered First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees as Scripture.

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW what Greek books Timothy read.

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW what books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture).

Until you provide a LIST of the books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded specifically as SCRIPTURE, you cannot say that because Timothy read some books, ERGO First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees MUST ergo be the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

Provide the specific list of the Books Timothy read, then we can talk about the proof each of them was ergo regarded as Scripture. Until then, your point is entirely, wholly baseless.

Brother, WHERE (pray tell) are you getting this stuff? It is SO unlike you.



Josiah



.

 

[pinacled]

The tortured mentioned in Hebrews are the 100 prophets hid in caves and also those that defied jezebel.
1 kings 18:4

Exegesis PaRDeS

30 Bible verses about Killing Prophets

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

Hebrews 11
[ 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.]

As already admitted by nathan the ressurrected were the children of the women who were visited by the 2 prophets named eliyahu and elisha.
So in answer to the ops que.
A resounding NO!
Hebrews ch 11 is not mentioning the maccabees.

1 kings 18
[ 4 for it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took a hundred prophets, and hid them fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.--]

Blessings Always

 

[Origen]

LOTS of huge, entirely unsubstantiated, incredible LEAPS, my brother.

That's putting it mildly.

 

[Andrew]

THUS, you admit, you have NO WAY TO KNOW if Timothy ever read First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees...

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW if Timothy or his parents or Paul considered First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees as Scripture.

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW what Greek books Timothy read.

And you have NO WAY TO KNOW what books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture).

Until you provide a LIST of the books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded specifically as SCRIPTURE, you cannot say that because Timothy read some books, ERGO First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees MUST ergo be the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

Provide the specific list of the Books Timothy read, then we can talk about the proof each of them was ergo regarded as Scripture. Until then, your point is entirely, wholly baseless.

Brother, WHERE (pray tell) are you getting this stuff? It is SO unlike you.



Josiah



.

No its SO like me, I first started reading the HOLY BIBLE for myself in 2012, it was a CATHOLIC KJV Bible key word HOLY, as its been for the first 1800 years or so of Christendom. I go to a Pentecostal and like a slap in the face some of my favorite books are missing, then I join this forum and low and behold those books are written by Dr Seuss and are laughable.
I did my homework on early Christianity and found out that those books were VERY common to the Church, YOU prefer the text that Jesus and the Apostles disagree with.
So the Septuagint isn't perfect, but its faaaaar more perfect than the Masoretic and the New Testament confirms it my friend.

We ask reasonable questions, in return we get "Cat in the Hat" and nonsensical trolling from a member that relies on quick internet searches because he has no respect for answering the questions with confidence.

I dont care what bible you use, the GOSPEL Message is ALL!

But SADLY the Jews today CONSTANTLY refute Christians and convert them through media by use of the Masoretic, it USED to be the opposite when Christians converted Jews by using the Septuagint which was based on an ORIGINAL Hebrew text, and we ask questions here to for scholastic and theological reasons.. Josiah it really bugs me when you ask me to cite where the words "Timothy read the books of Maccabees" in the Bible, when does the Bible mention the titles of bible books ever besides the Chronology of Kings? By that approach you practically dismiss the entire Old Testament.

 

[pinacled]

Did you even read what I said? I said that Hebrews 11:34 references the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego without actually mentioning the book of Daniel by name. But you just ignored what I said and insist that a book’s title must be mentioned in order for it to be referenced.

This is very disrespectful in your part, and shows that you’re not listening to plain reason or logic.

Incorrect.
Josiah is a veteran of this forum and from my perspective is attempting to show you how self discipline is involved while studying.
Take some time geting to know a fellow before making conclusive remarks about a persons character.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

Prove that every corpus of Greek books included First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees

Prove that Timothy read SOME possible corpus of books also found in some collections of the LXX. And that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccebees was so included.

Prove that Timothy or Timothy's parents or Paul considered all such books as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture).

No where does the Bible state that Timothy or anyone else regarded whatever and all in the LXX as SCRIPTURE. NO WHERE does the Bible state WHAT books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded as Scripture.

You need to provide a LIST of every book Timothy ever read.... and which ones HE or his parents or Paul regarded as The inerrant, canonical, normative, inscripturated words of God (thus Scripture). I've read the entire Bible, I've also read HUNDREDS of OTHER books. So, I've read the Scripture...that does not mean I THEREFORE read the Epistle of Barnabus and regard it as Scripture....nor does it mean I did NOT read Cat in the Hat.

LOTS of huge, entirely unsubstantiated, incredible LEAPS, my brother.



.

The op started with a circumstantial premise void of evidence in order to convince readers of a position that is easily refuted by piers that are fully armored.

The motive is of no concern except that they're attempting to distract from both theology and appologetic Truth.
Ie fellowship

Blessings Always

 

[Andrew]

The op started on a circumstantial premise without evidence in order to convince readers of a position that is easily refuted by piers that are fully armored.

The motive is of no concern except that they're attempting to distract from both theology and appologetic Truth.
Ie fellowship

Blessings Always

Without evidence? Really? Did you know that the Septuagint was all the early Christians and Jews had besides a remote few in Jerusalem? The epitaphs and graves of Jews from that period are mainly etched in greek or very bad choppy hebrew, thats archeology my friend. When the NT mentions a prophesy concerning Jesus, guess what? They quote the Septuagint where as the Masoretic uses vague and obscure craftiness to dismiss Jesus.. Wake up

 

[pinacled]

Without evidence? Really? Did you know that the Septuagint was all the early Christians and Jews had besides a remote few in Jerusalem? The epitaphs and graves of Jews from that period are mainly etched in greek or very bad choppy hebrew, thats archeology my friend. When the NT mentions a prophesy concerning Jesus, guess what? They quote the Septuagint where as the Masoretic uses vague and obscure craftiness to dismiss Jesus.. Wake up

Archeology

Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Are you anti semitic?

 

[NathanH83]

Incorrect.
Josiah is a veteran of this forum and from my perspective is attempting to show you how self discipline is involved while studying.
Take some time geting to know a fellow before making conclusive remarks about a persons character.

Blessings Always

Pinakled,
Don’t you agree that Hebrews 11:34 is referencing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego?

 

[pinacled]

Pinakled,
Don’t you agree that Hebrews 11:34 is referencing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego?

In part yes.
But there are others that shut the mouths of lions and were washed in Fire.

Do you agree that my exesigesis of graves emptied; and 1 kings relates to what ole sh'aul mentions in hebrews?

 

[NathanH83]

In part yes.
But there are others that shut the mouths of lions and were washed in Fire.

Do you agree that my exesigesis of graves emptied; and 1 kings relates to what ole sh'aul mentions in hebrews?

Pineacre,

Where else in the Old Testament was anyone thrown into a firey oven and survived? The only account is in Daniel with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego.

And obviously, Hebrews 11:34 doesn’t have to mention the book name of Daniel in order to know that’s the book it’s referencing.

So in the same way, Maccabees the book doesn’t have to be mentioned by name in order for someone to understand that events in it are being referenced.

If I say that a witch offered a little boy Turkish Delight in her sleigh, I don’t have to reference the name of “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” in order for you to have an idea what book I’m referencing.

 

[Josiah]

I did my homework on early Christianity and found out that those books were VERY common to the Church

Andrew,


Brother, consider...


1. Just because Christians "use" a book does not mean ERGO Christianity has declared such to be the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely inscripturated words of God (Scripture). Christians used Greek philosophers (Paul himself QUOTES them - consider that). Christians ALSO often used The Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Protoevangelium of James and more. Some of these were used a lot... some were specifically labeled as "Scripture." AND they used various epistles, quoted a lot, used a lot.... letters from Ignatius of Antioch, epistles of Clement, etc., etc., etc. If your view is that books used by early Christians should be in all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover and be regarded by all as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely inscripturated words of God (Scripture), then why not these books? I suspect they were used far more than most of the books with "Maccabees" in the title. Friend, I can quote verbatim ECF referring to some of these with the word "Scripture" can you do that with First and Second and Third and Fourth Maccabees?

2. Brother, Christians have ALWAYS used books. Always. They still do. Christians have quoted things from books - in every generation. If you attend any "Evangelical" church on a Sunday, you are quite likely to hear something from a newspaper or magazine or collection of sermon illustrations.... Max Lacado might be quoted from one of his many books... you might even see a video clip from a movie or TV show. So, why aren't you joining our freind and insisting ERGO the movie "The Blue's Brothers" must be canonical Scripture because you can fine some pastors who used a video clip from it? Insisting that if Christians use something, ergo Christiansity has declared that to be inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God is just absurd, my friend, my brother... and it should be OBVIOUS.

We ask reasonable questions

Our brother continues on a rant (for reasons I can't determine; he probably has a point but I've finally stopped asking him to tell us what it is.) What I'm replying to are CLAIMS being made with zero substantiation and with enormous, incredible, and frankly often absurd leaps. Baseless assumptions, bad logic, baseless apologetics. Our friend seems unwilling to think or consider anything, he is driven by some point he keeps a secret, he does not discuss. You on the other hand...

Josiah it really bugs me when you ask me to cite where the words "Timothy read the books of Maccabees" in the Bible, when does the Bible mention the titles of bible books ever besides the Chronology of Kings?

EXACTLY!!!!!! Think about that....

So when you claim (quite foundationally... the whole apologetic is BASED on this point, exclusively relies on this ) that one or more of the Maccabee books MUST be Scripture because Timothy read "Scripture," (a radically circular argument), unless you can prove he read at least 1 of the Maccebee books AND Paul regarded that/those specifically as "Scripture" then obviously, undeniably, the whole point is worthless... you don't know that Timothy ever read any of the books with "Maccabees" in the title. The whole claim is based on the point that Timothy READ one or more of those 4 books.. when you have ZERO evidence that he ever did. You may think it's likely but your apologetic depends on it be CERTAIN - and you don't know that. No one does. And even if you could prove he read 3 Maccabees, he probably read hundreds of books... unless you can show Paul regarded it specifically as Scripture, it's a meaningless point. Your whole point rests on something wholly baseless. I agree with you we also can't prove he read Genesis but then I'm not basing my entire apologetic on the point that Genesis is Scripture BECAUSE Timothy read it.



Consider....


Blessings, my friend


Josiah




.




.

 

[Origen]

Christians used Greek philosophers (Paul himself QUOTES them - consider that).

That is exactly correct.

In Acts 17:28 Paul states: “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'” The first part of that quote comes from Epimenides and the second part comes from Aratus.

In 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul states: “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.’”
That quote comes from Menander.

In Titus 1:12 Paul states: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
That quote comes from Epimenides.

Quoting a source\book\person does not translate into an endorsement of everything the source says\believes. Thus even if a N.T. author does quote a source that does not mean it ought to be part of the canon of Scripture. If there were the case, it follows that the works of Epimenides, Aratus, or Menander ought to be considered part of the canon.

 

[Andrew]

That is exactly correct.

In Acts 17:28 Paul states: “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'” The first part of that quote comes from Epimenides and the second part comes from Aratus.

In 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul states: “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.’”
That quote comes from Menander.

In Titus 1:12 Paul states: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
That quote comes from Epimenides.

Quoting a source\book\person does not translate into an endorsement of everything the source says\believes. Thus even if a N.T. author does quote a source that does not mean it ought to be part of the canon of Scripture. If there were the case, it follows that the works of Epimenides, Aratus, or Menander ought to be considered part of the canon.

Paul wasn't talking to pagans in HEBREWS tho, he was discussing Scripture

 

[Origen]

Paul wasn't talking to pagans in HEBREWS tho, he was discussing Scripture

You seem to be missing the overall point. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.

Also it is unlikely that Paul is the author of the book of Hebrews for a number of reasons. A quick check of early church history will support that point. As Origen points out:

"Who wrote the epistle is known to God alone: the accounts that have reached us suggest that it was either Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, or Luke, who wrote the gospel and the Acts."

And those two are not the only names that have been suggested.

 

[Josiah]

That is exactly correct.

In Acts 17:28 Paul states: “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'” The first part of that quote comes from Epimenides and the second part comes from Aratus.

In 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul states: “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.’”
That quote comes from Menander.

In Titus 1:12 Paul states: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
That quote comes from Epimenides.

EXACTLY!

So..... the premise is that if some book or author is noted or there is even a mention the same history, ERGO the thing quoted or noted MUST be the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus must be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover. So, by that premise, by that apologetic, those are all Scipture.

Quoting a source\book\person does not translate into an endorsement of everything the source says\believes. Thus even if a N.T. author does quote a source that does not mean it ought to be part of the canon of Scripture. If there were the case, it follows that the works of Epimenides, Aratus, or Menander ought to be considered part of the canon.

EXACTLY......


BUT, our brothers insist that even if the source is NOT noted.... even if it's NOT a quote..... whatever is even possibly alluded to MUST ergo be holy Scripture, a part of the Bible, the inerrant and canonical and divinely-inscripturated words of God.



And then there's the even more incredible apologetic that if Christians USED or READ something, ergo, that MUST be holy Scripture, a part of the Bible, the inerrant and canonical and divinely-inscripturated words of God. Paul read and used works of Aratus, Epimedides, Menader.... we know Christians OFTEN read and used and quoted The Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache and more.... some ECF even specifically called some of those "SCRIPTURE." So why aren't our brothers demanding that those be in our Bibles, those be regarded as holy Scripture, a part of the Bible, the inerrant and canonical and divinely-inscripturated words of God?


Hummmm.....

A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.

Obviously....

And a Jewish boy may read a book without it THUS, by that, it being the inerrant, canonical, holy, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture).
I rhink there are some absurd, incredible assumptions happening... circular reasoning.... and enormous, illogical LEAPS.



Blessings on your Easter season...


- Josiah




...

 

[pinacled]

In part yes.
But there are others that shut the mouths of lions and were washed in Fire.

Do you agree that my exesigesis of graves emptied; and 1 kings 18 relates to what ole sh'aul mentions in hebrews?

11 Bible verses about In Danger From Lions

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

Remember that there are 2 others who shut the mouths of lions.

 

[pinacled]

Pineacre,

Where else in the Old Testament was anyone thrown into a firey oven and survived? The only account is in Daniel with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego.

And obviously, Hebrews 11:34 doesn’t have to mention the book name of Daniel in order to know that’s the book it’s referencing.

So in the same way, Maccabees the book doesn’t have to be mentioned by name in order for someone to understand that events in it are being referenced.

If I say that a witch offered a little boy Turkish Delight in her sleigh, I don’t have to reference the name of “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” in order for you to have an idea what book I’m referencing.

2 Peter 3:16
Hebrews 11
[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.]

47 Bible verses about Burning People

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

Ole sh'aul is expounding and summarizing what occurred before the exile and more.

Mark 9
[46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.]

 

[pinacled]

2 Peter 3:16
Hebrews 11
[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.]

47 Bible verses about Burning People

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

Ole sh'aul is expounding and summarizing what occurred before the exile and more.

Mark 9
[46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.]

[ 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.]

And what about ephesians 6 being relative to hebrews 11?

 

[NathanH83]

2 Peter 3:16
Hebrews 11
[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.]

47 Bible verses about Burning People

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

Ole sh'aul is expounding and summarizing what occurred before the exile and more.

Mark 9
[46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.]

Pinneculled,

Who was it who by faith quenched the flames of fire? It has to be Old Testament. Hebrews 11 specifies that.