Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[pinacled]

Pinneculled,

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

Eliyahu with 4 pots of water.
1 Kings 18:34

And afterwhich such an offering, the ba'al fires of violence were extinguished.
Soon there after, Jezebel was no more a threat than dog food.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

Pinneculled,

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

Your form of eisigesis is likened to threading wool to a fine linen garment.
A mix that's prohibited.

Do you Understand?

 

[pinacled]

Pinneculled,

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

Do you know how many times eliyahu had the 4 pots poured?

 

[pinacled]

Pinneculled,

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

I have to admit that I got a chuckle from the penne culled pasta reference.
Hmmm tossed calories...

 

[pinacled]

Do you know how many times eliyahu had the 4 pots poured?

I ask for reason sir Nathan.
The relevance will reflect beyond the Drash of PaRDeS.
The question is for all readers.
Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

What silence? I don’t even understand your question. What’s Solomon got to do with anything? I don’t typically respond to weird questions.

The silence you exhibit is a lack of knowledge in the spirit where time is fluid.
The 4 pots poured 3 times were afore specific faithful armored souls beyond the furnace mentioned by danyl and shlomo as a 3 fold cord.
When the strength of a judge and the king put their hands together with the power of prayer.
"Lions mouths are shut"
The sun stood still for those who had a shield of Faith to wash away fiery darts.

A 4th yammin where the day star rises in the Heart.

Hence the 4 pots relating to the Yom when the sun and moon were created.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

What silence? I don’t even understand your question. What’s Solomon got to do with anything? I don’t typically respond to weird questions.

How many oxen are there?

 

[pinacled]

Yup.
Maccabees is real history, and fulfills Daniel’s prophecies.
What a tragedy that so many Christians are unfamiliar with it.
And yea, pinacle’s comments are really off-the-wall and unrelated.

If you need time to respond.
Take heed that my sword is still in its scabbard youngin ..

Pearls have layers.

 

[pinacled]

Unrelated.

The issue here is not whether some DOCTRINE in taught in the Bible, but whether a BOOK is referenced. If I claimed that the book "Cat in the Hat" is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew, obviously I'd need to show where "Cat in the Hat" is at least mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. Now, if I was asked if the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is mentioned there, that's a whole other enchilada.... I'd need to show where Jesus is labeled or described as divine.


If one reads Hebrews, you will not find First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees referenced or mentioned. Just reality. Sorry if that offends.




.

How many oxen uphold the laver?

 

[pinacled]

That's putting it mildly.

Do you fear the question I proposed to Nathan and Josiah.

How many oxen held up the laver?

 

[NathanH83]

The silence you exhibit is a lack of knowledge in the spirit where time is fluid.
The 4 pots poured 3 times were afore specific faithful armored souls beyond the furnace mentioned by danyl and shlomo as a 3 fold cord.
When the strength of a judge and the king put their hands together with the power of prayer.
"Lions mouths are shut"
The sun stood still for those who had a shield of Faith to wash away fiery darts.

A 4th yammin where the day star rises in the Heart.

Hence the 4 pots relating to the Yom when the sun and moon were created.

Blessings Always

Penaickled,

What in the world are you talking about?
You’re not showing any examples of someone quenching the flames [emoji91] of fire by faith. You’re just repeating stuff that happens in the tabernacle [emoji554]️.

Hebrews 11:34 is a reference to the book of Daniel. There’s nothing else it could be referencing.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

You’re missing the point. When people say the Apocrypha is not scripture, they say that the main REASON WHY is because the New Testament does not reference it. But it does.

And Hebrews 11 references 2 Maccabees as a part of Biblical history. I went to grade school and I know what context is. And the context of Hebrews 11 is that it’s part of the Bible. I’ve always gotten that impression, even when I didn’t know who the tortured men are (since I was using a Bible that was missing the apocrypha and marginal notes).

The identity of the author of Hebrews is not the point. You’re barking up the wrong tree on that one. Who cares if it was written by Paul, Barnabas, Clement, Luke or someone else? Point is, it’s scripture, and the author was inspired. That’s all that matters.

You quote Origen in regards to who the author of Hebrews is. Why don’t you quote Origen when he called 2 Maccabees holy scripture?


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

What caused Origen to think Maccabees is scripture? Origen was discipled by Clement of Alexandria. What caused Clement to accept Maccabees as scripture? What caused the churches in Alexandria to accept it as holy scripture? Why did the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declare it to be holy scripture?

Clearly, the early church accepted it LONG before the council of Trent in 1546.

 

[Origen]

You’re missing the point. When people say the Apocrypha is not scripture, they say that the main REASON WHY is because the New Testament does not reference it. But it does.

Since I did not make such a claim your point is moot and your comments does not refute what I said. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.

The identity of the author of Hebrews is not the point. You’re barking up the wrong tree on that one. Who cares if it was written by Paul, Barnabas, Clement, Luke or someone else? Point is, it’s scripture, and the author was inspired. That’s all that matters.

That may be the only thing that matters to you, but that is not the case for others or myself. Which topics or comments I decide to address are completely my choice alone.

You quote Origen in regards to who the author of Hebrews is. Why don’t you quote Origen when he called 2 Maccabees holy scripture?

Because his view on Maccabees does not refute my point. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.

What caused Origen to think Maccabees is scripture? Origen was discipled by Clement of Alexandria. What caused Clement to accept Maccabees as scripture? What caused the churches in Alexandria to accept it as holy scripture? Why did the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declare it to be holy scripture?

The fact is some church fathers believed it was Scripture and others believed is was not Scripture. And the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage did nothing to change that fact because the debate concerning those books continued long after that. It was still going on during the time of Luther and beyond.

 

[NathanH83]

Since I did not make such a claim your point is moot and your comments does not refute what I said. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.


That may be the only thing that matters to you, but that is not the case for others or myself. Which topics or comments I decide to address are completely my choice alone.


Because his view on Maccabees does not refute my point. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture.


The fact is some church fathers believed it was Scripture and others believed is was not Scripture. And the councils of the Rome, Hippo, and Carthage did nothing to change that fact because the debate concerning those books continued long after that. It was still going on during the time of Luther and beyond.

Yea, there was a debate because the unbelieving Jews poisoned the minds of Christians into thinking those books don’t belong.

Truth is, if the church has not declared these books scripture and preserve them, the Jews would have no stories to read during Hanukah, because they would all be lost.

Those books were not added in the 1500’s.

 

[pinacled]

Someone's showing their motives

 

[Andrew]

Someone's showing their motives

Why are you reporting all of Nathans threads? Please stop abusing the option to report

 

[NathanH83]

Someone's showing their motives

Motives?
Maybe you need to watch my video on the Pyramids and the Flood. The unbelieving Jews clearly tampered with the Hebrew Scriptures. My motive was to provide an answer for the atheists who asked, not to attack the Jews. The fact that the Jews tampered with the text is just a fact. Like it or not, they did it.

 

[pinacled]

Motives?
Maybe you need to watch my video on the Pyramids and the Flood. The unbelieving Jews clearly tampered with the Hebrew Scriptures. My motive was to provide an answer for the atheists who asked, not to attack the Jews. The fact that the Jews tampered with the text is just a fact. Like it or not, they did it.

You are assuming to give precedence to atheist over the jews as something worthy of acknowledgement. That is a biased attack from my perspective.
Besides.
Why not simply ignore the claims from atheist that the pyramids were built on a certain date.
Instead why not consider the possibility that egyptian historians were fabricating such a hoax to discredit The God of Israel.

The video you produced is wrought with inaccuracies and claims without any source material as evidence.

And I'll close with something tango mentioned.
Opinions aren't facts.

 

[Andrew]

You are assuming to give precedence to atheist over the jews as something worthy of acknowledgement. That is a biased attack from my perspective.
Besides.
Why not simply ignore the claims from atheist that the pyramids were built on a certain date.
Instead why not consider the possibility that egyptian historians were fabricating such a hoax to discredit The God of Israel.

The video you produced is wrought with inaccuracies and claims without any source material as evidence.

And I'll close with something tango mentioned.
Opinions aren't facts.

If you watched the video you will see that it's based on math, science, history and scripture comparison and analysis, you obviously havent watched it or you are completely one sided and made up your mind before watching it.

 

[Josiah]

If you watched the video you will see that it's based on math, science, history and scripture comparison and analysis, you obviously havent watched it or you are completely one sided and made up your mind before watching it.

The claim is impossible and baseless... any objective, truthful person KNOWS (undeniably) that the Book of Hebrews doesn't contain the words "First" "Second" "Third" "Fourth" or "Maccabees." Those words don't appear, even once, in the entire book... not in Greek or in any language. So, obviously, undeniably, no Maccabees book is referenced in Hebrews. Clearly, undeniably, Hebrews does not contain a book reference to... well... ANY book.

Yes, it is very common for books containing history to note similar or same history. This does not prove that ergo any book is thus the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). This is obvious, this is undeniable.... otherwise, there would be MILLIONS of books in the Christian Bible.

A LOT of claims are made in this thread - all meaningless and wholly, completely unsubstantiated (and pointless).




.